Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was delete. Yunshui  雲 水 09:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply

1980–81 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

1980–81 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the discussion about 1960–1961 to 1979–80 schedules, as these articles have the same issues:

Trivialist ( talk) 02:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I think that this information will be useful for people, especially as a sort of archive record that could be helpful for researchers in the future. WillPeppers ( talk) 04:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Less than ten sources with nearly 40 years of articles. The primetime schedules are well-sourced and justified, but here (and especially since 1997-98, when kids TV on broadcast began to die and by 2008, nobody under the age of 14 could muster any care for it any longer), there's few sources (and some of them are literal PR). TV encyclopedias already have this information, so it's still existent in book form. If you can source every one of these in the next seven days, be my guest, but otherwise, we're looking at information the category system and text in each show's article can cover much better. Nate • ( chatter) 05:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 05:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 05:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all: WP:NOTTVGUIDE says historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. The operative word is, of course, "may" — and the case can be made that such historical significance needs to be verifiably demonstrated in reliable sources. As it is, however, these schedules are all undersourced at best even in terms of the information itself (and some are unsourced entirely, and for years at that). Yes, these schedules can be potentially interesting and/or useful… but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be on Wikipedia, nor does that exempt them from our sourcing policies. (I'll note as well that should these articles be deleted, the navbox {{ US TV schedule Saturday morning}} won't have much reason to exist.) -- WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per most recent AfD discussion covering all other articles. Unsourced (for 11 years), non-notable, not encyclopedic and fails WP:NOT. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all fails WP:NOT. WP:USEFUL is not a good argument for keeping - lots of things are useful, not all of them are suitable for inclusion on Wiki. FOARP ( talk) 20:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all and in reply to ...such historical significance needs to be verifiably demonstrated in reliable sources... there are dozens of such sources listed/quoted in the Delrev for the last round of these AfDs. I don't want to spam this page with that long list of sources again, but there are scholarly works specifically discussing the historical significance of the scheduling of programming on Saturday mornings in the 1980s. For example, sources quoted in the delrev discuss the significance of Smurfs being on in the morning (and how that affected the development of news programs like Today). They contrast the lineups in the 1980s (filled with cartoons sponsored by toy companies selling toys) vs. the lineups at the same time in the 1990s (aimed at older children, tweens and teenagers, sponsored by clothing companies) vs. the lineups in the 21st century (tweens abandoned as a demographic because they don't watch TV on TV anymore, and instead focusing on adults).
If you read those quotes in the books and journals, you can then come look at the TV schedules linked above and see the actual lineups that the journals and books are discussing. You can see the counterprogramming, the lead-ins, the blocking, the tentpoling, and the change/development over time. This is an excellent reference. It has historical and encyclopedic value, and Wikipedia is a better place to have this information than anywhere else, because it's more likely to be accurate here. There are tons of reliable sources both to serve as a basis for the data, and to establish the notability of the data. It's a shame to delete it all.
Questions for those still not convinced: 1) Why is it important that they be deleted, what's the harm of leaving it? 2) If the sources posted thus far are insufficient, what sources would be sufficient to establish their notability/historical significance? What, written by whom, published where, would make the grade? Levivich ( talk) 01:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Scheduling =/= the schedule. Scheduling as a subject may well be notable and worthy of an article - in fact one already exists ( Broadcast programming). Wikipedia is not a TV guide and there is no point at which the TV schedule as a whole itself (as opposed to the techniques behind television scheduling) becomes encyclopedic, any more than the notability of telephone directories in general makes the content of specifc telephone directories notable. There may be cases in which specific artifacts of the television schedule rise to the level of encyclopedic content (e.g., instances of programming going head-to-head in a notable ratings competition such as the Monday Night Wars) and in those cases an article is justified, but not the schedule as a whole which is just an indiscriminate collection of information. FOARP ( talk) 09:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ FOARP: Thank you for taking the time to reply. I understand what you're saying: scheduling is notable but not the schedule itself. I'm very new here and I cannot express how utterly confused I am about the difference between "indiscriminate collection of information" and a "discriminate" collection of information. Let me explain how I am looking at Wikipedia and maybe you or someone can help me see straight:
  • Delete - same issues as previous bunch. These articles are a collection of WP:NOTTVGUIDE (electronic program guides) with mostly no sources at all, and those which have source, are just a TV guide source. Levivich's sources are really good but they do not belong on these articles, but on an article that talks about the subject of United States Saturday morning network television schedule. As it stands, these articles have no sources ( WP:V), no context ( WP:N) and are just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Gonnym:, I have a question for you, and I'm not arguing with you, I only ask to avoid wasting my time (and yours). If I were to go through these articles and add sources – inline citations for every episode of every show, cited to Castleman, Harry and Podrazik, Walter J. (1984). The TV Schedule Book. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-010277-5., by page, or TV Guide, or local newspaper listings, or your source of choice... would that change your mind (or anyone else's)? I don't want to do the work if it's not going to matter in the end. But if it won't change your mind, then this isn't about lack of sources, right?
  • If I added a paragraph to the beginning of each article explaining (using sources from my delrev) the concepts of blocking, lead-in, counterprogramming, etc...if I added a summary paragraph about Saturday morning cartoons...If I added little summary blurb paragraphs summarizing each show... would that change our mind? I don't mind doing it but I don't want to waste my time. If it doesn't change your mind, then it's not about lack of context, right?
  • "Indiscriminate" means "done at random or without careful judgment." These television shows are organized by year, by time, by channel, and by season. So it's not random. It is only for the " Saturday morning cartoons" television block, only on the broadcast networks, and only lists notable TV shows...the time slot, networks, and shows all have their own articles. That seems like careful judgment in its selection and organization. How could it be better organized to be more discriminate and less indiscriminate?
  • Again I'm not trying to argue with you, but I don't want to add sources and explanatory paragraphs if it won't change anyone's mind anyway. Levivich ( talk) 05:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I'd still say it wouldn't help the article. Citing a TV guide that a show actually was on at that time is good for WP:V, but that does not mean that the 1975 Saturday morning TV shows was notable. Also, if you need to add the same exact lead paragraph to each article then again, creating an article for the subject of United States Saturday morning network television schedule and you can also add a List of United States Saturday morning network television programs - both of which are better suited than the current articles as they offer academic value and context. -- Gonnym ( talk) 07:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Gonnym: Thanks for the response. I was wondering about List of United States Saturday morning network television programs: would it be deleted? If I included in the list what network it aired on, and what time, would either of those be deleted? I'm guessing based on your comment at the delrev that channel yes, time no.
The academics who study Saturday morning cartoons focus on what time they're on. For example: Studying programmes closely as single texts also has the disadvantage of separating a programme from its place in the schedule of the day in which it was broadcast...Selecting individual programmes for study means extracting them from the flow of material of which they are a part, and which might have important effects on their meaning... While each programme or ad might be interesting to analyse in itself, more meanings relating to speed, pollution, road safety or masculine bravado might arise because of the connections between the programmes and ads in this television flow. - An Introduction to Television Studies, London: Routledge. The author is saying you cannot understand a television show without understanding its broadcasting context–the "flow"–what comes before, what comes after, and what is on at the same time. It's important that Tom & Jerry precedes Bugs Bunny. It's an example of pairing and lead-in.
For example: This study investigated the effects of various programming strategies, commonly employed by the networks, on program popularity for children...Simple correlations supported the relationship between program popularity and the following programming strategies: counterprogramming by type, block programming by type, inheritance effects, starting time, program familiarity, and character familiarity. - "Programming Strategies and the Popularity of Television Programs for Children", Human Communication Research journal. The study factored in start time, counterprogramming (what else is on at the same time), and blocking (like, Might Mouse + Tom & Jerry + Bugs Bunny + Popeye).
My point being, an article about Tom & Jerry would and should include its airing time, what came before and after it, and what was on at the same time. A list of Saturday morning television shows should have the same information. If you rearrange that into a TV schedule, that's an improvement, and a legitimate resource for academic researchers, or at least it seems that way to me. Just as much a valuable part of an encyclopedia of human knowledge as a list of all the species of moths, or a list of all the episodes of Game of Thrones. Levivich ( talk) 08:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. I !voted "keep" in the previous AfD mainly as a result of procedural unfairness, and I am still extremely uncomfortable with both of User:Sandstein's closes – but especially the first one, as I wrote last time. Even if the reasoning is seemingly sound, AfD needs to run its course to evaluate community consensus properly, and short-circuiting the process causes huge problems. (As a side note, I have found most of Sandstein's closes to be more well-grounded than the average, so I do not think it is bias on my part.)
Now, with that out of the way... Many of User:Levivich's sources would indeed be excellent for a standalone article or three covering the topic in prose, as it seems has already been pointed out. But as much as I dislike the essay on Wikipedia:Bombardment when it comes to WP:V and WP:N, it most certainly is a salient point in terms of other policies. WP:NOTTVGUIDE (which itself is often interpreted over-broadly, but not in this case) is very clear that Wikipedia is no place for full-fledged TV schedules, and for very good reason: it may be great material for a database, but it makes for a mess of an encyclopedia.
In short, Levivich's hard work is unfortunately tangential to the simple fact that the existence of these tables violates WP:NOT in and of itself. (This energy would be far better spent on stopping and reversing the constant deletion of incredibly valuable material from Wikipedia by users selectively and wildly inappropriately invoking NOTTVGUIDE where it obviously does not apply, e.g. simple program listings on articles with little traffic and therefore virtually no editors to defend them.) Modernponderer ( talk) 20:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1980–81_United_States_network_television_schedule_(Saturday_morning)&oldid=1079280725"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was delete. Yunshui  雲 水 09:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC) reply

1980–81 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

1980–81 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the discussion about 1960–1961 to 1979–80 schedules, as these articles have the same issues:

Trivialist ( talk) 02:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I think that this information will be useful for people, especially as a sort of archive record that could be helpful for researchers in the future. WillPeppers ( talk) 04:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Less than ten sources with nearly 40 years of articles. The primetime schedules are well-sourced and justified, but here (and especially since 1997-98, when kids TV on broadcast began to die and by 2008, nobody under the age of 14 could muster any care for it any longer), there's few sources (and some of them are literal PR). TV encyclopedias already have this information, so it's still existent in book form. If you can source every one of these in the next seven days, be my guest, but otherwise, we're looking at information the category system and text in each show's article can cover much better. Nate • ( chatter) 05:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 05:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 05:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all: WP:NOTTVGUIDE says historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. The operative word is, of course, "may" — and the case can be made that such historical significance needs to be verifiably demonstrated in reliable sources. As it is, however, these schedules are all undersourced at best even in terms of the information itself (and some are unsourced entirely, and for years at that). Yes, these schedules can be potentially interesting and/or useful… but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be on Wikipedia, nor does that exempt them from our sourcing policies. (I'll note as well that should these articles be deleted, the navbox {{ US TV schedule Saturday morning}} won't have much reason to exist.) -- WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per most recent AfD discussion covering all other articles. Unsourced (for 11 years), non-notable, not encyclopedic and fails WP:NOT. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all fails WP:NOT. WP:USEFUL is not a good argument for keeping - lots of things are useful, not all of them are suitable for inclusion on Wiki. FOARP ( talk) 20:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all and in reply to ...such historical significance needs to be verifiably demonstrated in reliable sources... there are dozens of such sources listed/quoted in the Delrev for the last round of these AfDs. I don't want to spam this page with that long list of sources again, but there are scholarly works specifically discussing the historical significance of the scheduling of programming on Saturday mornings in the 1980s. For example, sources quoted in the delrev discuss the significance of Smurfs being on in the morning (and how that affected the development of news programs like Today). They contrast the lineups in the 1980s (filled with cartoons sponsored by toy companies selling toys) vs. the lineups at the same time in the 1990s (aimed at older children, tweens and teenagers, sponsored by clothing companies) vs. the lineups in the 21st century (tweens abandoned as a demographic because they don't watch TV on TV anymore, and instead focusing on adults).
If you read those quotes in the books and journals, you can then come look at the TV schedules linked above and see the actual lineups that the journals and books are discussing. You can see the counterprogramming, the lead-ins, the blocking, the tentpoling, and the change/development over time. This is an excellent reference. It has historical and encyclopedic value, and Wikipedia is a better place to have this information than anywhere else, because it's more likely to be accurate here. There are tons of reliable sources both to serve as a basis for the data, and to establish the notability of the data. It's a shame to delete it all.
Questions for those still not convinced: 1) Why is it important that they be deleted, what's the harm of leaving it? 2) If the sources posted thus far are insufficient, what sources would be sufficient to establish their notability/historical significance? What, written by whom, published where, would make the grade? Levivich ( talk) 01:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Scheduling =/= the schedule. Scheduling as a subject may well be notable and worthy of an article - in fact one already exists ( Broadcast programming). Wikipedia is not a TV guide and there is no point at which the TV schedule as a whole itself (as opposed to the techniques behind television scheduling) becomes encyclopedic, any more than the notability of telephone directories in general makes the content of specifc telephone directories notable. There may be cases in which specific artifacts of the television schedule rise to the level of encyclopedic content (e.g., instances of programming going head-to-head in a notable ratings competition such as the Monday Night Wars) and in those cases an article is justified, but not the schedule as a whole which is just an indiscriminate collection of information. FOARP ( talk) 09:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ FOARP: Thank you for taking the time to reply. I understand what you're saying: scheduling is notable but not the schedule itself. I'm very new here and I cannot express how utterly confused I am about the difference between "indiscriminate collection of information" and a "discriminate" collection of information. Let me explain how I am looking at Wikipedia and maybe you or someone can help me see straight:
  • Delete - same issues as previous bunch. These articles are a collection of WP:NOTTVGUIDE (electronic program guides) with mostly no sources at all, and those which have source, are just a TV guide source. Levivich's sources are really good but they do not belong on these articles, but on an article that talks about the subject of United States Saturday morning network television schedule. As it stands, these articles have no sources ( WP:V), no context ( WP:N) and are just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Gonnym:, I have a question for you, and I'm not arguing with you, I only ask to avoid wasting my time (and yours). If I were to go through these articles and add sources – inline citations for every episode of every show, cited to Castleman, Harry and Podrazik, Walter J. (1984). The TV Schedule Book. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-010277-5., by page, or TV Guide, or local newspaper listings, or your source of choice... would that change your mind (or anyone else's)? I don't want to do the work if it's not going to matter in the end. But if it won't change your mind, then this isn't about lack of sources, right?
  • If I added a paragraph to the beginning of each article explaining (using sources from my delrev) the concepts of blocking, lead-in, counterprogramming, etc...if I added a summary paragraph about Saturday morning cartoons...If I added little summary blurb paragraphs summarizing each show... would that change our mind? I don't mind doing it but I don't want to waste my time. If it doesn't change your mind, then it's not about lack of context, right?
  • "Indiscriminate" means "done at random or without careful judgment." These television shows are organized by year, by time, by channel, and by season. So it's not random. It is only for the " Saturday morning cartoons" television block, only on the broadcast networks, and only lists notable TV shows...the time slot, networks, and shows all have their own articles. That seems like careful judgment in its selection and organization. How could it be better organized to be more discriminate and less indiscriminate?
  • Again I'm not trying to argue with you, but I don't want to add sources and explanatory paragraphs if it won't change anyone's mind anyway. Levivich ( talk) 05:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I'd still say it wouldn't help the article. Citing a TV guide that a show actually was on at that time is good for WP:V, but that does not mean that the 1975 Saturday morning TV shows was notable. Also, if you need to add the same exact lead paragraph to each article then again, creating an article for the subject of United States Saturday morning network television schedule and you can also add a List of United States Saturday morning network television programs - both of which are better suited than the current articles as they offer academic value and context. -- Gonnym ( talk) 07:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Gonnym: Thanks for the response. I was wondering about List of United States Saturday morning network television programs: would it be deleted? If I included in the list what network it aired on, and what time, would either of those be deleted? I'm guessing based on your comment at the delrev that channel yes, time no.
The academics who study Saturday morning cartoons focus on what time they're on. For example: Studying programmes closely as single texts also has the disadvantage of separating a programme from its place in the schedule of the day in which it was broadcast...Selecting individual programmes for study means extracting them from the flow of material of which they are a part, and which might have important effects on their meaning... While each programme or ad might be interesting to analyse in itself, more meanings relating to speed, pollution, road safety or masculine bravado might arise because of the connections between the programmes and ads in this television flow. - An Introduction to Television Studies, London: Routledge. The author is saying you cannot understand a television show without understanding its broadcasting context–the "flow"–what comes before, what comes after, and what is on at the same time. It's important that Tom & Jerry precedes Bugs Bunny. It's an example of pairing and lead-in.
For example: This study investigated the effects of various programming strategies, commonly employed by the networks, on program popularity for children...Simple correlations supported the relationship between program popularity and the following programming strategies: counterprogramming by type, block programming by type, inheritance effects, starting time, program familiarity, and character familiarity. - "Programming Strategies and the Popularity of Television Programs for Children", Human Communication Research journal. The study factored in start time, counterprogramming (what else is on at the same time), and blocking (like, Might Mouse + Tom & Jerry + Bugs Bunny + Popeye).
My point being, an article about Tom & Jerry would and should include its airing time, what came before and after it, and what was on at the same time. A list of Saturday morning television shows should have the same information. If you rearrange that into a TV schedule, that's an improvement, and a legitimate resource for academic researchers, or at least it seems that way to me. Just as much a valuable part of an encyclopedia of human knowledge as a list of all the species of moths, or a list of all the episodes of Game of Thrones. Levivich ( talk) 08:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. I !voted "keep" in the previous AfD mainly as a result of procedural unfairness, and I am still extremely uncomfortable with both of User:Sandstein's closes – but especially the first one, as I wrote last time. Even if the reasoning is seemingly sound, AfD needs to run its course to evaluate community consensus properly, and short-circuiting the process causes huge problems. (As a side note, I have found most of Sandstein's closes to be more well-grounded than the average, so I do not think it is bias on my part.)
Now, with that out of the way... Many of User:Levivich's sources would indeed be excellent for a standalone article or three covering the topic in prose, as it seems has already been pointed out. But as much as I dislike the essay on Wikipedia:Bombardment when it comes to WP:V and WP:N, it most certainly is a salient point in terms of other policies. WP:NOTTVGUIDE (which itself is often interpreted over-broadly, but not in this case) is very clear that Wikipedia is no place for full-fledged TV schedules, and for very good reason: it may be great material for a database, but it makes for a mess of an encyclopedia.
In short, Levivich's hard work is unfortunately tangential to the simple fact that the existence of these tables violates WP:NOT in and of itself. (This energy would be far better spent on stopping and reversing the constant deletion of incredibly valuable material from Wikipedia by users selectively and wildly inappropriately invoking NOTTVGUIDE where it obviously does not apply, e.g. simple program listings on articles with little traffic and therefore virtually no editors to defend them.) Modernponderer ( talk) 20:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1980–81_United_States_network_television_schedule_(Saturday_morning)&oldid=1079280725"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE