Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky

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. Delete all Wifione ^Message 13:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of channels on Sky

(View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following the process here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, I am confident that we have both policy (NOTDIR) and precedent working against Wikipedia hosting these articles. They serve no purpose despite claims that WP:USEFUL can be invoked. It's not useful, in any sense, to have a list of television channels on a website which can be edited for good or bad purposes at the whim of anyone who feels like it. It's not necessary to show channel listings when Sky subscribers already have a channel guide in front of them by pressing a button on their remote control. It's against WP:NOTDIR to have television guides as articles, and the two AfDs linked above show that this definition has been widened to include channel guides too. I will contact editors from these nominations after completing this one to make them aware of my decision to use their deletions as inspiration for this one. doktorb _words^deeds 06:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment 22 October Please note that the AfD has been modified to add a whole phalanx of related articles, all of which I recommend for deletion. I will now contact all editors on this article to make them aware of the modification. doktorb _words^deeds 03:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but a tough call. Until you get to the very end the article is unsourced, but at the end in the "future" or "proposed" section are 40 good sources, so that section at least is shown to be encyclopedic, and article is already not a directory, reliably sourced, etc. So at minimum this equates to a rename to List of proposed Sky channels. However the rest of the article indicates the TVphile's tendency to believe that not even primary sources are needed, which is extremely contrary to WP principles. Assuming the primary sources exist the rest of the article is more defensible on the fact that it is supplemented by reliable sources for the "future" section, but it would still need secondary sources for the "present" section as well, so that equates to a fixit. Further, there are obviously 16 linked articles (first is Entertainment, last is Radio) that do nothing other than duplicate the unsourced data in this one, and so the position above is consistent with delete the other 16 articles due to redundancy and thus POV imbalance, and add those 16 articles to this nom or even speedy them separately from this AFD. OTOOH, there are two other articles linked near the end (besides the other 16 "main" articles) that are extremely well-sourced, so those 2 articles should be kept also (if ever nommed under the flawed NOTDIR rationale invoked here). But since the future and the past are so well-sourced the fact that the present is lacking both primary and secondary sources is basically a large, correctible flaw. As to NOTDIR itself, the sudden recognition that consensus has allowed 480 such articles and the sudden regulars who have gotten a handful deleted are not an indication that lists of channels are directories; if the channels are network affiliates rather than content providers we seem to have no problem including lists of channels that are controlled by a single entity, even though the affiliates are a much more controlled case. So I will await that voice of reason that will arise to speak for the prior consensus that the principle behind the 480 articles does not violate NOTDIR, and then we can figure out just what lists of channels we do keep. As opposed to programs, a list of channels is a list of contracts, not a directory (program or otherwise). 12.153.112.21 (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of McDonald's locations is also a "list of contracts" in the same sense, yet that's pretty much the classic example of a NOTDIR violation, so that...alternative characterization...doesn't change anything. Which isn't even an accurate characterization anyway, given that there are a comparative handful of media companies (e.g., Viacom) that own most cable channels, so far fewer "contracts" than channels listed. You also seem to be under the misapprehension that NOTDIR is somehow concerned with sourcing, which it isn't. If an article's content and subject are not verifiable, then it is deleted per WP:V. If it is verifiable, then it still may be deleted per NOTDIR, so merely pointing out that the list is sourced does not accomplish anything. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's only about 100 such articles that are a problem. The 480 number seems to include "List of (national network) affliates" which are not the same as the Sky article included above. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I'd object strenuously if anyone tried to delete the network affiliate lists. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per NOTDIR as affirmed recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and per the new additions, none of them are any different than the original nommed list - delete all -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the noms I did for the two previously indicated AFDs. (I would have also included all the sub-channel lists that exist for Sky at the same time too, per IP's .112.21 reasoning). --MASEM (t) 20:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still Delete all now that all the other Sky listing have been added. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [all] per NOTDIR as explained in detail in the previous AFDs; I see no reason to treat this differently. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC) (amended 04:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per NOTDIR. I wrote much more about the problems with these articles at the List of AT&T U-verse channels. A major objection I expressed with that article was the wide range of regional variation and frequent changes in AT&T's lineups; maintaining that article was akin to maintaining a sandcastle in the tidal zone. I suspect that's not as much of a problem with a satellite broadcaster, but I still thing NOTDIR still applies. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous AFDs A. B. brings up another good point as well. As time goes by these don't always get updated when channels change and they become a mess of disinformation. MarnetteD | Talk 22:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simple "Wikipedia is not a directory" grounds, nothing more to see here. Tarc (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on NOTDIRECTORY grounds. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, ~~here~~ is a list of the articles in Category:Lists of television channels, which in all total about 480, but (after excluding the obvious keeps in "Lists of American television network affiliates‎" and excluding duplications) ~~appear below as~~ only 320 at this moment. You could also make an argument for excluding those sorted geographically, and excluding templates, and excluding the 16 Sky subarticles that qualify for speedy deletion, and you might get to about 100 that way. The point is that, if any of the remainders are nommed and kept, or not nommed at all after discussion, why then we've found that consensus solution for how to keep a list of channels by company after all. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So tell us, how much are you paid to argue on behalf of retaining this and other article related to cable/satellite tv companies? I think it is pretty clear to anyone that looks into your extensive and narrowly-focused edit history that this zeal is above and beyond that of one who is simply here to expand an online encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the presumptive question, it has such a way of focusing matters. I am not paid at all to argue or to edit at all, whether from this IP or from my segregated account User:the "good guy". My edit history is admittedly self-chosen SPA and it would be appropriate to tag me as such. I think the variety, quality, and constructiveness of my edits within my selected topic speaks for itself; and I am recognizing the group position here but politely awaiting process to determine whether any lists of "channels by company" will remain via consensus or whether the category will be emptied and deleted. Please defer further questions about me to my talk: 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 100-some that are a problem are those listed in Category:Lists of television channels by company. --MASEM (t) 06:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Masem, looking forward to the community decision on whether the category and all subcats will be emptied. No comment on the adds to this nom that are not among the 16 directly linked via main/details links. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, comment on content, not on the contributor. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As my intent was only to provide a helpful list that can be checked against until it is all redlinked under the prevailing hypothesis, based on the above I am whittling the list down only to the 65 unduplicated titles remaining in "by content" or "by company"; this also includes most of the Sky titles under discussion. Apparently affiliates and lists by country, language or region are not being axed. (I have also tweaked a few category listings to make this distinction clearer; see my history. I see that there has also been some speedying and redirecting going on in the interim.) Naturally, I am still of opinion that if consensus or inertia should retain any of the below titles, other titles can be structured on the same principles as those retained. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Channel lists

Arbitrary break one

Delete all obviously for violating WP:NOTTVGUIDE (part of WP:NOTDIR) and because consensus in prior AFDs said so. Shall I go on further just to avoid violating the essay WP:AADD? --George Ho (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, and the comments I've made at those pages. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the actually nominated articles per WP:NOTDIR, and as failing WP:N. This does not include the "otherstuffexists" listing of other irrelevant things such as the lists of actual television station in a nation or a US state and templates related to TV which were introduced in an obfuscatory and disruptive manner by 12.153.112.21. Edison (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this nom is itself an OSE argument, as it relies much more on the fact that previous noms have succeeded than it does on the actual text of notdir. I appear to be the only one continuing to wave the flag planted by others that notdir does not exclude company-based lists of channels. My list above that you refer to was merely a result of a miscommunication; prior conversations were speaking of deleting all "lists of channels" but now it's clearly just "lists of channels by company", which is a much clearer and more agreeable demarcation. It remains to be seen whether the category will be totally emptied or whether historical reviews such as List of former TV channels in the United Kingdom (a very keepable article spun off from Sky coincidentally not listed in the phalanx above) can be kept within the category. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I have pointed out in both previous AFDs, WP:NOT (and NOTDIR by extension) purposely is not written as fully inclusive lists of what WP is not. Just because "lists of channels by company" is not listed under NOTDIR does not mean that lists of that nature are exempt from the intent of NOTDIR. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would be interested to hear arguments in favour of that former TV channel article! That could be my next AfD doktorb _words^deeds 06:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Arguably, if you remove the channel numbers from those tables, that list is reasonable to keep. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I pointed out that when guidance is silent we go by consensus, not just as expressed in similar AFDs but also as expressed in the creation and sustenance of similar articles. But that's not important right now. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. And NOT is not silent on the issue, because directories fall within its scope - with consensus used to distinguish which directors are actually problematic. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete all Sounds like a WP:NOTDIR broken record in here. But seriously, Edison, postdlf, and Tarc have said it all. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to a "List of channels in nation", e.g. List of channels on Sky Deutschland to List of television stations in Germany. Although in my experience the latter can become awkward to edit and read, a case of WP:TOOLONG I guess. Under WP:NOTDIR lists can be kept if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. In the case of Sky (UK and Ireland), there is evidence that prominent listings on Sky can increase viewership by a significant amount[1][2][3] and failure to gain any listing or carriage can cause in the closure of a channel altogether.[4][5][6][7]

The function of an electronic program guide or TV guide is primarily to provide scheduling information for current and upcoming programming, which is not present in these articles. WP:TVSHOW also backs up the idea that WP:NOTTVGUIDE is about not listing programming schedules.

McDonald's locations or phone numbers in New York are largely trivial and in general aren't mentioned on Wikipedia, meanwhile there are thousands of articles on television channels, most of which include Template:Infobox television channel and make use of the fields for channel numbers per provider often in addition to mention in the prose. I'd say that the majority of channels in the lists also have their own article. The lists are therefore useful in bringing together related articles in television and navigating the subject. At around 1,000 views per day for the Sky article[8] there's an indication that a non-trivial number of people have also found some use for it.

There is some suggestion that one company would control access of the service and therefore the article, this isn't the case as the services are often open and regulated, explained in the third paragraph of Sky (UK and Ireland)#Technical information, this extends to the allocation of numbers.[9][10] This also allows free-to-air, free-to-view or separate subscription channels to exist on the platform, it's also possible for a broadcaster to refuse to be added or fail to negotiate terms.

The idea that articles shouldn't exist on Wikipedia because the information exists elsewhere contradicts WP:NOR, nor is there anything limiting readers to subscribers. Any article on Wikipedia could be edited for good or bad purposes, that doesn't make them useless. Quite a few of the votes here are just pointing at a policy or guideline and the definition of a directory is vague enough to apply to all lists, it's hard to see why the "List of (national network) affiliates" example given above should be kept when they present very similar information (name, number, owner etc.). - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone is arguing for deletion of lists of channels broadcasted within a nation/region, which seems to be a reasonable think to track. We're specifically focusing on the broadcasters (cable/satellite) lists of what subset of channels they offer, which can be subject to local variation and frequent changes. No, those aren't electric program guides, but they do fit the concept that NOTDIR outlines. --MASEM (t) 06:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the channels on satellite/cable would also broadcast in the nation/region and be listed just the same, with the same potential issues. Would terrestrial/over-the-air lists also end up under an afd discussion? The UK doesn't currently have many local television channels below national level (1?) with most services also available nationally and retaining the same line-up. I'd guess that would be the case across most of Europe because of the limited physical size/audience of each county. List of channels on Sky only contains one local channel (BBC London 94.9 - radio), as does List of channels on Virgin TV (Seven (UK TV channel)). After a quick look at some of the large countries in Western Europe, ignoring that it's a nation article List of television stations in France has the most local variations I've seen but with only 5 terrestrial channel numbers affected, none of which are on their satellite/cable services according to the article. Growth in television channels in the UK has also stagnated, with new channels usually announced well in advance (see List of channels on Sky#Future channels and events). It sounds more like an American TV issue to be honest. Wouldn't it make sense to just remove local variations from national services where the vast majority of the channel line-up is the same in all of the areas it serves? At what point does a list turn into a directory? - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your last question is exactly the unanswered issue. My answer is that it a list of channels only becomes a true program directory when it starts listing programs. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR I've made the same point on the U.S. equivalent AfD running in parallel with this, but I think this is clearly definable as a directory of TV Channels and that's one of the things that wikipedia is not. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I am using this wikipedia page for research right now. I do not live in Italy, I am working for a production company. It would be very difficult for me as a foreign, non-subscriber to find a list of which channels are offered in another country for their subscripton or broadcast services. Even going to Corporate websites they are not as easy to navigate or as thorough in explaining which channels are what kind of broadcast or differences in availability. This is not just a meaningless list but a guide to branch off into researching other information about these channels. Just because it seems meaningless to you personally doesn't mean that it isn't informative to other users of Wikipedia. Lanaii7 12:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)— Lanaii7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia seeks encyclopedic articles first and foremost, not "useful" ones. From WP:USEFUL: "A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory." -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and wikipedia is not here to provide services for a corporation by providing a better directory than they do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete with chance of snow - delete per NOTDIR as affirmed recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels; why must we go over the same ground again and again? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note: I have created another AfD which is similar to this one. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Under WP:NOTDIR. These are not encyclopedic topics and Wikipedia is not meant to be a universal repository of all trivia. There is a place for current TV directories; this is not it. Carrite (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not a directory of channel listings or an electronic program guide--Hu12 (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2012 (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.