Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of AT&T U-verse channels

List of AT&T U-verse channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Outright failure of WP:NOTDIR, as an electronic program guide. The channel line-ups change over time and with region, so there's little use as an encyclopedic article. The most current one can always be had via the provider's website, which can be linked to from the provider's article. There may be some cases of historical issues with certain channels not being available on certain providers, but that's better suited for articles about the channels or providers to describe the basis and resolution of the conflict.

Please note: I'm only nominating this one page, but the same logic here likely applies to all 100-some pages in Category:Lists of television channels by company. If there is agreement this one should be deleted, a followup process should be made to assure the others are deleted without having to AFD each one (making exceptions where necessary). MASEM (t) 13:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Masem beat me to it in nominating this article for deletion. As an administrator, I was recently drawn into a running dispute between 12.153.112.21 and Neutralhomer over what the current lineup was and what the sources should be. See Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Channel lineups in Wikipedia, User talk:A. B.#12.153.112.21, and User talk:12.153.112.21 (starting at September 2012). When I last signed off, I left wondering, "Isn't this what cable system online channel listings are for?" and "how can we have these articles when my own provider requires I enter my postal code to see my lineup since it changes as you go across town?" I'm sure there are guidelines and policies both to justify keeping and to justify deleting (WP:NOT vs we're not paper and we're the sum of all knowledge). As for me, I'm basing my comment on exasperation, common sense and sheer wonder at the energy invested in fighting over this stuff. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Weak keep Strong keep. Incidentally, this VP AFD may or may not be related to a content dispute in which I have taken the side that historical channel changes should be included. There are many third-party sources indicating negotiations and channel disputes and changes between high-powered ISPs and high-powered content providers, and these should be aggregated rather than relegated to individual articles, in accord with the exception to NOTDIR, "historically significant program lists and schedules". The content dispute has weakened my desire to hunt down and organize and display these sources but they're very easy to find on Google News by searching by provider. I am looking forward to the discussion by established community members and am likely to go along but will reserve my right to comment on any mistaken impressions about this topic. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I notice that WHOIS identifies your IP address as an AT&T address. Can you clarify any connection you may have to AT&T? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be completely honest, I have no interest in the dispute - but the word about the dispute appearing on a few talk pages that I watch brought my attention to this article. So no, this AFD is irregardless of the problems in that dispute. As to the "historically significant program lists and schedules", you'll notice it doesn't say anything about channel lists. The historical importance of programs however, such as NBC's Must See TV, or the category of articles that include season-by-season broadcast TV lists 2011–12 United States network television schedule, are what are considered under that. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - blatant and shameless violation of NOTDIR; this nomination is long overdue. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible copyvio (channel IDs may be copyrighted). Shameless violation of NOTDIR. Historical changes of channel lineup and packages might be included in the parent article, or a different spinoff article. (Note: I found this AfD because I monitor the talk page of one of the users the IP complained to, and it was an interesting title. I was not invited.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This list is purely factual: what channels are carried by this provider. The list itself is not what the provider created, as if it had put together an ordered list of "favorite cable stations". So there is no copyright issue here. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed: It's not a "creative" list in any sense (the threshold for copyright), so it is strictly factual and ergo non-copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my experience with cable companies, the channel IDs are the responsibility of the cable company, rather than being a purely descripive name or assigned by the cable channel. The channel names are submitted by the cable channel. Whether, for example, Animal Planet is APL, APLP, ANIM, or some other identifier is unique to the provider. Nonetheless, if this article had any benefit, we could probably claim "fair use" or "implied consent". The plan names, also, would be creative, if they weren't intended to be numeric levels (U100, U200, etc.) or descriptive (UBASIC, UFAMILY, etc.). Still, it's not important; even if it were a copyright violation, we could probably obtain permission. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. 14:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just a directory listing. If there is some encyclopaedic merit to a topic on historic listings or changes to listings, this aint it anyway. (Note, I'm here because George Ho asked on my talkpage what should be done with this and similar articles) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those !voting delete, it would be helpful to comment on the approach I've suggested for the other 100-some articles of this same type as to avoid flooding AFD, or if there is a different approach that should be taken. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD should get the broadest possible attention since it will likely serve as a precedent. I encourage the closing administrator to give it sufficient time to establish a clear consensus with as many participants as possible. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've noted this AFD at VPP, I've just added a note at WT:TV. I'm not sure of any other places outside the standard deletion sorting that would be appropriate, but others should feel free to draw attention to this. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest raising your question about what to do with the other 100 articles (if there's a consensus to delete this one) at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, that Village Pump thread and/or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. There is a process to nominate multiple articles for deletion in one AfD; in the past, I've seen those go awry. If there is consensus here to delete this article, then I would consider multi-article AfDs based on tranches of 5 to 10 articles, starting with the most-obscure, least-watched, least-edited list articles. There may be a few lists for big system operators with stable lineups that are better handled with individual AfDs; the community may want to keep them. What doesn't work is a multi-article AfD where some articles end up keepers and some don't -- the discussion gets very muddled and often contentious. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this current AFD continues the trend it is going now, it doesn't seem worthwhile to even make a smaller number of AFDs for the other articles which, when I spot-check them, all are effectively the same. That's why a separate process, meant specifically to allow people time to say "hey, this one is different, it should be kept!" seems more appropriate as followup here. If it were only 5-10 more articles total in addition, sure, I'd just repeat the AFD, but I think we can avoid that with the larger number that would be affected. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I think Masem has the right approach, that channel lineup is only interesting or encyclopedic where there are documented negotiations, contract deals or disputes or something else to make the carriage or non-carriage of a channel worthy of note in the company's history, to be described in the compay's article. Otherwise, the lineup should only be summarized in the aggregate, noting channel count where that increase has been documented ("between 2000 and 2010, CableTown increased its lineup from 250 to 400 channels..."). Otherwise, this is indiscriminate data, and an actual NOTDIR "violation". postdlf (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOT, wikipedia isn't an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information that is true and it's not a directory. The same applies to the rest in this category (if they have similar content). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I originally planned to nominate this atrocity as AFD, but I couldn't. So I first made talks in WP:VPP and WT:WPTV. Back to this list, this list itself has no encyclopedic value and is a violation of WP:NOTDIR, as Masem said. There is no need to waste time on channel lineups, cable or not, especially when schedule rapidly changes. --George Ho (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think moving to Wikisource solves anything. We could face multiple revisions of channel lineups. --George Ho (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above comments. Wikipedia is not a directory, and is not a indiscriminate collection of information. This list verly clearly fails both of those guidelines, and should be deleted as appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will admit a little bias since I added a lot of the information since it took a lot of digging to get some of the details from the U-Verse web site since they don't keep pdf files of the channel lineups. Like Verizon FiOS, they do have what is a national lineup where the principal variations are for local broadcast stations and regional sports networks. The telcos like the satellite companies are closer to national providers and unless you want to play a stream of zip code plug-ins on many of these sites, there really isn't a single source of these lineups that is accessible. This only became an issue because of recent vandalism which saw a user throwing in outdated information (which is not on the other lists) making the article less manageable and less reliable. Past histories of programming and contract disputes outside of current ones should be left in the provider articles and not in the list providing confusing and contradictory information. If it comes down to deleting this article, then I would say that the other channel line-ups (with the possible exception of satellite providers) also be deleted from Wikipedia as well to maintain consistency. Livingonli (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • By vandalism you mean my attempts to update the article from its source, which were rejected by you and another editor in favor of these nebulous nonsources you refer to. If there is no source available that would support the deleters, sorry. The fact is that two PDFs at least have been found and that these and the media sources support a historical review. But I'm finding that the community collective is taking two different approaches, either straight deletion of 100 articles, or relying on dynamic nonsources. My approach of using sources is what Wikipedia used to be about. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above view that this fails NOTDIR without question. Whilst Wiki is not paper, it's not a repository for every aspect of modern culture This is nothing more or less than a dump of details which can be found elsewhere. Livingonli - just because no other source provides the information doesn't mean Wikipedia should. The onus is on the correct organisation to make information available, not Wiki to step in as a catch-all. Deletion of this, and other similar articles, is a no-brainer doktorb wordsdeeds 20:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking, will add a new !vote at the bottom. - NH Strong Keep: I just put four seperate references to this article this morning (you can find them at the very top, first sentence). This is not like a Comcast or a Charter Cable that has various channel lineups, U-verse is unique as (like DirecTV and Dish), it carries the same lineup nationwide and is bringing out the east and west coast feeds for both sides of the country. These were previously just available for their respective sides of the country. So, this is not a NOT#DIR violation as it is a unique occurence and is sourced with current (2011 and 2012) references. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid you misunderstand; the issue isn't whether it is verifiable, so simply providing sources that verify this channel lineup isn't sufficient to overcome the criticisms above. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I did provide them prior to article being AfD'd. Though, I will not be upset if it is deleted. I just ask that if it is, if an admin could edit move it to my userspace after deletion or email the text to me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even excluding regional differences, this type of directory is not appropriate, given that it is constantly subject to change at a whim of the company or stations. As noted, notable issues with channels being unavailable or added or change are appropriate in the company article (eg I don't know about AT&T Uverse, but I'm sure there's number of Dish Network-related problems that can be added there), as that part is significant going forward. As noted, it's neither a verification nor a notability issue, but simply this is not the type of information that is encyclopedically appropriate. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - NOTDIR, original research, no notability. Spshu (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Qworty (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:DIRECTORY. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a reasonable spin-out topic from the main article on the cable/satelite system. The list would overwhelm the main article, so it seems reasonble to split it out as its own list. --Jayron32 13:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I've been the recepient of WP:NOTDIR comments in the past myself. Exactly what clause of NOTDIR is being violated? Not an electronic program guide? From the EPG article's current definition, EPGs: "provide users of television, radio, and other media applications with continuously updated menus displaying broadcast programming or scheduling information for current and upcoming programming." In what way does this article violate that part of NOTDIR? At the risk of "violating" the off-cited WP:Other stuff exists, what about List of DirecTV channels (United States), List of Dish Network channels (United States) & List of Verizon FiOS channels? --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT is not a fully-inclusive list of examples of problems, but gives ideas of what types of problems can exist, so just because a listing of stations carried by a television carrier is not explicitly listed doesn't mean it doesn't violate NOTDIR. Also, as to those others, as I identified, if this AFD does prove this to be deleted, those will under review for deletion as well - this was explicitly a test case. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So lacking clear, consensus-based guidance from NOTDIR, is the argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT? And why not use e.g. Dish, McDonald's, Microsoft as test cases? Use of less-notable articles as test cases seems to be a pattern in AfD and content deletion arguments. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uh, you're missing the point. A channel offering list is similar enough to other electronic program guides, as well as other similiarities to directories, as to fall within NOTDIR's territory, even though it's not explicitly listed. Further, while you may consider this list "less-notable", as you'll note above, this AFD has been well advertised, so it doesn't matter how notable the actual service is (and I would contest that AT&T Uverse is not notable since it is a major player in the US). What does McDonalds or Microsoft have to do with this? --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um, you mean the clause in NOTDIR that links to Directory (databases), an article which, even if one believes is well-suited to the discussion, has been tagged as being unsourced since April 2007? As to your other points, I didn't claim not notable, just less-notable than other articles. My mention of McDonald's and Microsoft goes to the same point: the tendency I've seen historically to "clean up problems"/make a point on less-notable articles, while leaving alone highly notable articles which exhibit the same "problems", as modifying or deleting those might serve to rile-up the WP community and the general public. I would submit that using Dish or DirecTV as the test case instead, would generate many more and better comments, and would lead to a much broader consensus. --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The other articles are formatted in exactly the same way, so any of them are fine as a test case; it's not a matter of what one may be more notable than others, as long as the discussion is broadcasted appropriately (which I feel it has). The only reason I picked this one is that the edit war prior to this AFD on it appeared in several talk pages, and on looking at it, and then the category, I realized they all are a problem and should go, but felt the better option was to go with a test AFD than to nominate en masse (which almost never works). --MASEM (t) 22:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is a test case to delete articles listing Channel Guides/EPGs per WP:DIRECTORY, not a test case to delete every/any article. Your mention of McDonalds and Microsoft misses Masem's point. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Without reflecting on anyone's motives, I think that too often Wikipedia justifies "test case" on the grounds of "because edit war" (which this wasn't). Far easier to start an avalanche AFD than to understand the disagreement. A fresh influx of NOTDIR skimmers will overcome actual article readers more often than not. Based on more source review I'm moving to "strong keep", but it will take awhile in "userfy" for this to happen on WP's gamed timetable. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The edit war has nothing to do with this. I understand there was an issue between showing historical information and current, but either form would fail NOTDIR. No amount of sourcing will fix that. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Wikipedical, WP:DIRECTORY is something else, and not relevant to this discussion. I've already explained my McDonald's and Microsoft references. --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Delete It: First off, please note that I have struck my original !vote above. I would have added an updated one there, but it was part of it's own "mini-thread", so I moved things to the bottom for continuity's sake. Now then...after dealing with the anon's constant, blatant and disruptive vandalism and "corrections", it is best to just delete the article outright. That, on top of the very clear "Delete" consensus here. I would still ask that the article be moved to my userspace after deletion. Thank You. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, whoa, whoa. First, there is no language in WP:NOTDIR about disallowed content being "similar enough" to an Electronic program guide. Second, NOTDIR has pointed to Directory (databases) since 10 August 2006, not to directories in general. (And had it pointed to directories in general, would that necessitate the deletion of all articles starting with "List of"?) Third, "Directory (databases)" has been tagged as unsourced since April 2007. Quite a poor foundation for a Wikipedia Policy. Which leads us to a quite existential and likely fatal flaw: the NOTDIR Policy is dependent on the current content of regular articles. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines cautions: "Links to other advice pages may inadvertently or intentionally defer authority to them." NOTDIR goes much, much further than deferring to advice pages: it's deferring authority to articles !!!!!! That prospect is truly disturbing, and not just to prove a point here, I'm compelled to go tag NOTDIR itself. --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this one and all the others as non encyclopedic content. we are not here to provide a free hosting service for corporations to be promoting their content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's gone unnoticed, be aware that this precedent would call for the deletion (barring secondary sources) of all "List of" articles within Category:Lists of television channels by company and elsewhere, both for the United States and for other countries. The precedent should also affect List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations, List of XM Satellite Radio channels and other similar and dissimilar "List of" articles. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSo what - your attempts to Wikilawyer around the intent of WP:NOTDIR on the basis that it supposedly doesn't cover this exact sort of dictionary directory appears to have little support - and unless and until the policy is changed, we will have to conform to it. The consensus here is that this is a directory, and that as such it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If you want to argue that the policy should be changed, do it in the appropriate place, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would still ask that if they are "purged" as OrangeMike put it, that I could get a couple moved to my userspace. Maybe one day find a way to make them NOT#DIR appropriate and reintroduce them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Jayron32. There is an article about U-Verse. Having a page listing the channels it carries, updated as needed, is by no means a wild, radical extension of the original page. Much of what I've read here seems to be pedantic WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No way anyone can source each fact cited in that list to a reliable source independent of the topic. Fails WP:LIST. It may be an information source that has value to some people, but it's not a valuable information source per WP:LISTPURP. There's no Navigation or Development purpose to the list. And the big one, delete per WP:NOTDIR, whic notes "article on a radio station should not list ... current schedules". List of AT&T U-verse channels is close enough to that to fall under NOTDIR. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uzma Gamal, lists are developed because independent sources provide snapshots of them, and when that has been established there is nothing wrong with completing the list from self-published sources. I grant that the independent sources have not yet been added on the face of the article, but nobody has disputed our assertions that many exist. Further, a schedule of programs of a single radio station is qualitatively different from a schedule of stations of a single TV provider. Thus your supplemental arguments fail just as much as the notdir argument is failing. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see the independence from AT&T U-verse. AT&T U-verse originates the information and the supplies the information to sources and they reprint it as provided by AT&T U-verse, which is similar to how a press release works, only with less prose information. Seems to me that, if articles on internet service providers should not list the television channel lineup per NOTDIR, then there shouldn't be a stand alone article on that television channel lineup. Regarding being avaluable information source, NOTDIR indicates that historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. For example, if there was a list that conveyed how AT&T U-verse changed its television channel lineup overtime, I think that would be more valuable than the current list because you then could get some insight/sense into AT&T U-verse's thinking over time, business reactions in response to changes in technology over time, and/or etc. and get insight into questions like "Where the heck did my channel go." As for the current List of AT&T U-verse channels, readers do not need Wikipedia for the information since people can just go to AT&T U-verse Channel Lineup. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the historical changes were simply presented as they were without any additional commentary, this would still fail NOTDIR. If there is commentary, it is better to put that in prose on the provider's article to discuss "major lineup changes". Again, an example I think would be the various failings that DISH Network has had with certain broadcasters that eventually negotiated on contract teams. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not violate NOT DIR, because this is simply detailed coverage of an important subject. to illustrate, a list of members of congress in in some sense a directory. Yet we inbclude it on the basis that it is signficant historical information about an important subct. The present article is not anywehre near suco important, but where we stop is a mtter of judgement, not to be solved by quoting buzzwords. As a nationwide company, I think that;s enogh jutification. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • detailed I will give you. important, not in the least. people who make the laws of the land are important. whether a particular cable company has CNN on channel 4 or 444 is not. if it is, it would require actual text based commentary by third party reliable sources to show why. and if such commentary appeared, it would be appropriate to cover it in the article about the company and not in this list. Just because a company is big, national or even international does not automatically guarantee that everything about them is important or worth a standalone encyclopedia article. List of streets on which Toyota has a manufacturing plant, List of VP of HR of CocaCola Company, List of pet related companies previously own by Berkshire Hathaway Inc.-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you've done is create a batch of obviously stupid article titles which have no chance of being created, or if they are, of lasting very long. What you haven't done is argue how this article is a bad idea, compared to other list articles like Pink Floyd discography or List of Microsoft operating systems which seem like better matches for what this article does. --Jayron32 23:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, what i did was respond to the claim made by the user that "As a nationwide company, I think that;s enogh jutification" by providing examples that showed such reasoning is not sufficient as there are lots of things related to national companies that are clearly not worth articles. And your examples are the ones that are completely inappropriate as there are multitudes of sources that discuss in detail the PF discography and the MS operating systems. There are none that discuss even in passing detail the list of Uverse channels.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What? Neither discography nor list of OSs is similar to list of channel lineups from one company. Discographies and lists of OSs have historical sense; channel lineups randomly change and have no third-party or independent coverage that would indicate notability of channel lineups. --George Ho (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • See, George Ho, what you did there is called making a good argument. This is distinctly different from what Red Pen did. It isn't helpful to be ridiculous here, or to mock other people. Instead, making cogent, well reasoned arguments is the way to make this work. --Jayron32 23:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I dont think my examples are ridiculous. Where a multinational decides to place high paying manufacturing jobs is far more important than whether FOX is on 887 or 889 today. Who is directing fortune 500 companies in matters of hiring, discrimination, skills training is far more important than whether I watch the Next Food Network Star on 69 while someone on the other coast watches it on 111. Whether the biggest investment holding company has decided that the economy is going to get so bad that consumers are no longer going to be having a lot of disposable income to spend on their pets and is dumping pet stores from their portfolios is far less trivial than which block of 100 channels the ESPN sports stations are being delivered on this week. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A. B. We're not here to regurgitate material than can be much better presented elsewhere – and more reliably and in a more timely fashion – on the Internet than we can. --MuZemike 22:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Transient, trivial, non encyclopedic information. Nobody Ent 00:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably unwelcome sidebar comment

  • Possibly Probably unwelcome sidebar comment: If people really want to make TV-related lists, how about a list of communities served by each cable system? I don't know if it meets WP:NOT or if the outside world wants to read it, but it would sure make it easier when tracking some anonymous sock IPs to know what parts of metropolitan areas are served by different cable providers. Ditto all the independent phone companies in America (like CenturyLink, etc.) --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: First off, I moved this to a seperate section so we didn't clog up the thread above with this discussion (gets confusing for some). Anywho, I would object to adding each and every community to a list on the infobox. For major cable or satellite systems (ie: FiOS, U-verse, DirecTV, Dish) that have the same lineup nationwide, that's no problem, but systems like Comcast, Charter, Time Warner and Suddenlink (to name a few) have different lineups from state to state, hell even town to town. I have Comcast and if you go 15 miles down the road, the cable channels are all in different places, different locals. So, it would just be a mass of information. That's where Zap2It and TVGuide.com come into play. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:NOTDIR. No, don't see it, read it. As the discussion above amply demonstrates, we tend to discourage compiling massive lists of unencyclopaedic information (and where is 'nationwide' anyway for an international encyclopaedia?). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutralhomer, I didn't mean a list of channels. I meant a list of what cable operators served what communities. That's not readily available online (if I'm wrong and there is something readily available, let me know since that's information I would use periodically when investigating some IPs). There are industry directories you can buy but they're very expensive. Again, this is purely a sidebar comment for anyone who enjoys compiling lists (not me)! Heck, you could even do it in my user space. And thanks for being moving this off to its own section. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not appropriate, because again, that goes in the concept of a directory. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • @A. B.: Ah, gotcha. I misunderstand what you were meaning. That could be a very long list with a lot of original research as there really isn't a list for say Comcast or Time Warner systems anywhere online...at least not that I know of. But Masem is right, it would go again NOT#DIR.
          • @AndyTheGrump: It was a sidebar question, no need to live up to your username. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While this sidebar discusses a need, it's not a WP need. These lists are proprietary and that's why they're OR. The fiber providers are only in the communities where they have fiber boxes and a list of fiber boxes, which is the only thing this sidebar would amount to, is more of a Google Earth project. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing of article

Moved from Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not:

End move --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise to AfD

Crossposted from Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels#Compromise to AfD

As a compromise position to deletion of the article, would it be proper to create "Category:AT&T U-verse channels", and populate each channel accordingly, then delete this article?

End Crosspost --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • God no. See WP:OCAT; we do not categorize articles by every fact they contain, and categorizing cable channel articles by every provider that carries them would really be a ridiculous thing to do. I can guarantee that any such category would get soundly thrashed at WP:CFD. postdlf (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • also NO. Although aI support the article, doing something like that makes every possibly objection to the content even worse, If we are goign to cover it, a single article is better than diffusing the information in this extremely unhelpful fashion, with all the associated overhead. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 2 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.