Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Net 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.  Sandstein  10:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Net channels

List of Net 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)

Current channel listing that clearly fails WP:NOTDIR, a constantly changing directory like an electronic program guide. See overwhelming consensus for deleting channel lineups at other recent AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List_of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete As per WP:NOTDIR, generally. Fails policy by replicating an electronic programme guide. doktorb _words^deeds 03:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment @Dokorbuk I can't see any TV programmes listed in the article only TV channels, therefore how can it be considered to be replicating an EPG? IJA (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Textbook example of what we are to avoid per WP:NOTDIR... Carrite (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete along with WP:NOTDIR these tend to drift as editors quit or move to other things and they always wind up being out of date and full of incorrect info. MarnetteD | Talk 03:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete another article that fails WP:NOT. Mtking ^(edits) 03:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• delete - purely a directory -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, just another channel lineup for an individual cable provider, just like all the others deleted per NOTDIR. The key point is that this is a directory for one company's services, just ephemeral data. postdlf (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep While the channel number allocation may be considered a little crufty, and a longer term view than simply the current line up would be an improvement, the channel mix is an important part of the business model of television companies. Changes in packages bought and sold between media companies reflect huge valued deals, and are important parts of the businesses that employ tens of thousands in any large country, and have customer bases in the tens of millions. The package is also a culturally important artefact, reflecting the national socio-economic and cultural situation. Channels are well documented in industry journals. To argue that this is a directory, simply because it is a list is to miss the point of what a directory is. Doubly missing the point "Wikipedia is not a directory" does not mean that there cannot be commonality with a directory, just as the fact that we tended to move "dicdefs" to Wiktionary does not prohibit an article from starting with a definition of it's title. Rich Farmbrough, 04:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC).
  

the packages and comings and goings of stations could (if reliably sourced, which this is not) provide insight into the business and history. however, which ephemeral channel a particular station is assigned to today, does not provide any such insight and that is solely what a List of X channels article can do. any encyclopedic content would need to be a text based (not list) History of stations carried by X. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Duh! How many more are there left? Also, Rich could not fully grasp why the list does not belong to Wikipedia, even when he types in 1,000 bytes of one commentary. Obviously, these lists direct readers to wherever a network is. Brazillian free channels may be all right. However, the channel lineup is of cable company from Brazil. --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as falling foul of WP:NOTDIR and completely unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - for the reasons explained over and over, of WP:NOTDIR, which trumps the feeble WP:ITSUSEFUL we hear with each losing batch process. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep It is not an 'Electronic Programme Guide' as it doesn't list programmes (thus not violating WP:NOTDIR), instead it is a notable list of channels by a major television operator in South America. IJA (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Unfortunately, I missed the early part of the debate when the precedent and momentum for mass deletion was set. However, I feel the argument for deletion in some cases has been flawed. Whilst I accept consensus can change. My understanding of the original meaning of WP:NOTDIR was that it was to combat a trend in TV/Radio station articles to publish the entire schedule of the station in question. In that case I agree that Wikipedia should not try and replicate that. However, I feel that channel line-ups are not the same thing. In many cases they are sourcable. Furthermore, whilst subscribers have ready access to some (i.e. the EPG position) of this information, non-subscribers don't. A further argument presented is that they are purely "marketing tools" of the platform provider. I don't believe this is necessarily true. On services where you dont actually have to subscribe to receive some (of even many) channels the articles shine a light (in a way that service providers never would) to what a subscriber is actually paying for. This may not be true of the article in question and this may or may not be fixable (cable is probably more closed than a satellite platfrom).Pit-yacker (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

your comments _still_ place the channel directory solely as a marketing instrument or shopping guide. do you have any basis for _encyclopedic_ application? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This is an encyclopedia, not TV Guide. - MrX 14:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Cable and sat lineups are too ephemeral to be encyclopedic. Broadcast channel lineups are long-lasting and are suitable, but cable and sat are not. Disclosure: I was notified of this discussion. Gigs (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comments
  • It seems Gigs makes a valid point (which I mentioned) about the time-dependant nature of these lists - although we can see there have only been a few changes in the years this article has existed. That however is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for good curation.
  • I am wary of the suggestion that "Broadcast" is legitimate, where "cable and satellite" are not.
    • Portions of the UK, for example, were effectively cable-only for decades, and satellite systems were available to all with the equipment with far more ubiquity than terrestrial signals.
    • Moreover the US model has hundreds, if not thousands of "broadcast" television operators, as I understand it.
    • In the UK there are currently effectively only three operators, Virgin Media, Sky, and the terrestrial digital consortium. The terrestrial consortium, and its technology are newer than the other two, while all three have roots going back decades.
    • There also seems to be anti-commecial sentiment "free to air" is ok, "paid for" is not. Again, while Wikipedia is not a marketing tool, we do not suppress information simply because something might benefit a commercial organisation. WP:NOTCENSORED
  • Programme guide: This is a chestnut that is repeatedly brought up. Perhaps the confusion is because in the UK we refer to a BBC 1, as a programme, not a channel, traditionally. This is not a programme guide (which is listing of shows and times) by any stretch of the imagination.
  • Sourcing. Poor sourcing is never a reason to delete of itself.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

That's a rather poor straw man you're setting up; no one is saying we should not have articles on commercial entities, or anything cable/satellite provider-related. We have plenty of articles on individual notable cable networks just as we have articles on individual broadcast stations, cable TV series just as we have articles on broadcast network series, and plenty of articles on notable cable and satellite providers. Broadcast networks in the U.S. (with the exception of PBS or NPR) are also commercial ventures, and subscriber-only cable and satellite providers also carry free-to-air broadcasters (cable companies are actually required to in the U.S.). So the dichotomy you are trying to set up here to explain away the deletion rationales doesn't hold up, and it should be obvious that's not what any of this is about. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think made any such straw-man argument. I can quote Gigs word for word "Broadcast channel lineups are long-lasting and are suitable, but cable and sat are not." From a position of relative ignorance, delivery technology looks like a poor distinction. Audience size might be more relevant. Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

You're actually continuing the same straw man by describing this as a delivery distinction: it isn't, because no one is disputing that there are notable cable networks or notable cable providers. And there are many possible valid lists of cable networks (by type, by owner, by market). The difference is this list, like all the others deleted, is specific to the service provided by one company. So yes, a list of all broadcast stations licensed and operating in a particular region is long-lasting; a list of all stations carried by an individual cable provider are not. There simply is no comparison there. Look at it from the point of view of the station listed if you want another way to illustrate the relative weight of the information: While one of the first things you'd say about WNBC is that it is a broadcast television station in New York City, would it be as important to point out that HBO is a channel carried by Net S.A.? postdlf (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Rich you make points which have been explored in numerous AfDs which saw directory type articles deleted en masse. This is not about censorship, it's about WP:USEFUL and WP:OR, as much as it is about WP:NOTDIR. We don't refer to BBC 1 as a programme in the UK, I should know more than most editors here. We know "The BBC" as being channnels 1 and 2, or channels 7 or 8. That's on the remote control we use, it's on the screen we access, it's sometimes in listings magazines. All of these places can't be replicated on Wikipedia - it's not useful to have them on here, when they're easily available at a push of a button. It's not accurate to have them here - they are likely to change first on-screen rather than through editing a page. The US model is very different to the UK, of course it is, but that doesn't mean we can fit policy around anomalies. doktorb _words^deeds 23:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not OR in the slightest, these are clearly documented facts. I would agree, as I said, that channel/transponder numbers are less relevant today than historically (but having said that people are interested in UHF/VHF channel numbers "from back in the day") though I would not be surprised to be proved wrong. As for usefulness, if I am looking at a content company like Flextech and wish to understand who buys their content, this is important. Murdoch's media control is spread through these sorts of deals worldwide. It might be OR for us to research this for an article, without secondary sources, but it's certainly not OR for us to report on the programming. Bringing information together in a common format is part of what encyclopaedias do.

As to the use of the word "Programme" you are perhaps a little young to remember the days before Channel 4 which probably marked the watershed in the terminology. Take a look at BBC Light Programme for example. Anyway the distinction between a channel list and a program guide is very clear, yet many delete !votes have stated that these articles are programme guides.

You state that "they are likely to change first on-screen rather than through editing a page" -that's fine. This particular list will never be on my screen, and is hence an improvement as a source over my screen. NOTNEWS means we don't have to be bang up to date, in fact it is crying shame how much content has been lost due to people who think only the current state of events is relevant (particularly in commerce where there used to be a habit of merging articles when companies merged).

I'm not sure which model you think is the anomaly, the UK or US. Regardless this is about a Brazilian carrier, which seems to serve a significant part of that market. Saying that we cannot report on the channels that they provide (or provided) seems counter productive. Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

I agree that OR isn't the problem here at all. postdlf (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There's another angle that hasn't particularly been discussed here. Broadcast licensees often build their brand identity around their broadcast channel number. This makes their broadcast channel numbers more relevant, as well as more lasting. If you asked me what cable channel I get Comedy Central on, I couldn't tell you. It's a nearly useless piece of technical trivia that I rarely even encounter anymore, now that I have a Tivo. The ephemeral nature of cable and sat lineups also carries more implications than mere maintainability.

Our encyclopedia should converge toward enduring facts. A constantly updated list doesn't do this. If we dated and saved each version it would address this concern, but it would clearly create new problems in that the old lists would be trivia that no one would much care about. To me that's the most telling thing... it's not an enduring subject, it's only useful or interesting in the current form, which tells me that it's not suitable for an encyclopedia. Gigs (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. When we delete a substantive article it should be done respectfully and with regret and so I find the tone of some of this discussion rather distasteful. Whether or not there is a breach of WP:NOTDIR seems to be purely a matter of subjective opinion. I can't see that the "deletes" (here and at the other AFDs) are any more policy-based than the "keeps". To my (UK) mind the argument that the list is equivalent to an EPG seems utterly bizarre—the material here is not subject to constant change. Or maybe channels change constantly in Brazil and lineups vary from place to place across the country, I don't know. The article has not had a huge number of edits but this may be lack of maintenance rather than an indication of stability. Sadly, the article has serious shortcomings: no references, context or historicity. If there were a channel list at http://www.netcombo.com.br (I haven't found one) or some other reliable place I'd suggest creating a new section at Net S.A. linking to the external source and redirecting this article there. Otherwise, as an editorial matter, this list could be merged into Net S.A.. Whatever happens, a bald "delete" is not where I think WP:NOT policy or WP:GNG guidance should lead us. I was notified of this discussion. Thincat (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• comment This one seems to have a no consensus ora slight consesnus to delete. if this oen isnt deleted all the previous one will have to be undeleted will a wider debate on this is done via RFC on wether notdir really is valid reason to delete all of these as point out ther enot a epg and ther enot advertising a business, some did have business information that should be removed if restore but none where violating notdir. if the consensus is deelte a rfc is not required , but it is required if no consensus or keep is reach and the previou one need undeleted as we cant have one remain but the toher not, and we cant relist it for afd just because the consensus didnt go in on parties favoure.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

One AfD does not weigh upon the others. They've been deleted, that's the end of it. doktorb _words^deeds 12:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does have a relevance in terms of some sort of general precedent that is being challenged, as the articles which have been deleted earlier could go before a deletion review and become undeleted and restored. That is sort of a foundational principle of Wikipedia, where changes that are made should be reversible if consensus can be achieved to reverse course. That doesn't say anything about the merits of this particular AfD in regards this specific article, but since all of these related articles seem to have the same format, cover roughly the same rationale for existence, and portray similar kinds of information it is reasonable that their fate should be tied together regardless of whatever the outcome of these AfDs and larger RfCs finally decides. It certainly seems inconsistent to have some articles like this existing and others being deleted. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

thank you robert for understnading wha ti meant and making it clearer.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - Unlike some of the above comments, I don't see this as a "clear cut example" or "textbook example" of anything like WP:NOTDIR, as lists of related subjects is a long standing tradition on Wikipedia. I know there are some who would want to get rid of all lists on Wikipedia, but that is a fight that has been around for nearly a decade and won't go away any time soon. That said, I don't see anything in this particular list that is tying these various television networks together or provides any value over the List of Brazilian Television Channels. Compared to other lists, I really don't see anything of substance being offered with this particular article other than perhaps acting as a guide for somebody who may have this particular cable provider. Other lists can and often do have additional pieces of information associated with them. As perhaps a compromise, if some of these various lists were merged together and had something like that Brazilian Television Stations list which also listed channel numbers for various major cable providers associated with those networks... could that provide some of the same sort of information that is currently being displayed on this page but in a more useful format? I do think some room for compromise is definitely available where this kind of article could at least be removed but the useful information be preserved in some fashion and remain on Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think that compromise would make the data much more suitable for an encyclopedia. To me a good analogy would be lists of company phone numbers. They are somewhat enduring, but unless they are worth discussion in their own right (like 1-800-FLOWERS for example), once they are out of date they are nothing but trivia that has no lasting historical value. The fact that univision was channel 135 on a certain carrier, and 156 on another as of 12/2012 is not of much or any enduring relevance. The "no enduring relevance" test to me is an excellent test for the spirit behind WP:NOTDIR. We shouldn't focus only on the words that are written there, WP:NOT can never describe all the things that Wikipedia is not. It's meant to describe general classes of items that are unsuitable. Gigs (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

there a big difference between phone numbers ( and phone number in american style ie ferw numbers and thena word that you have to convert to numbers doesnt happen in teh uk) and a list of channels with a channel number next to it, why dnt we go down the line of deleting ever tv station article? because that advertise a company and it gives the channel number so it giving the epg.... i think you should go learn whata epg is and what adirectory is, a list of channels with channel number is not a directory but sadly to many here can not see that, i agree with robert this one is mroe deleteable because it poor layout and because there multi cable companeis in america an brazil so list them under one page, but other one sthat have been deleted could easily pasted a afd if policy wasnt getting took out of contextAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If you read WP:NOTE, but especially WP:NNC (within the notability guidelines), I should point out this guidelines explicitly states: "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation."

I mention this because is it sort of a false notion that information worthy of deletion as an article topic ought to be applied to content within. Indeed I fail to see why company phone numbers couldn't be included within company articles... to use this analogy. If it is factual and verifiable, it certainly can be included... but that is for another forum to discuss that kind of issue other than to say that your analogy is flawed. There is nothing wrong with the data itself being included... just as links to "official websites" are included in company articles. If the list is already going to exist, and the list itself is justified in and of itself, adding information like what broadcasting channel a network or television station is located on is very much relevant to any such list. I'll use List of television stations in Utah as an example, where I think common channel assignments on major cable providers would very much be in line with the rest of this kind of information. It sounds like any similar kind of list of information is something you would want to have deleted including this particular list of TV stations. I am suggesting there may be another route to go here. I certainly do not understand why this information must be discarded from Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk)

The whole point of WP:NOT is to point out that there are things that are factual and verifiable that don't belong here, because this is an encyclopedia. Ephemeral information that ceases to be useful, relevant, or interesting after it is out of date doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Web addresses are part of a company's identity and branding, and are usually historically relevant even if the organization moves to a new domain. The IP addresses of their servers are usually not. Cable channels are more like the IP address than the domain name. No one is arguing to delete this information on notability grounds or lack thereof, the people arguing delete are arguing that the data is unsuitable for inclusion, period. Gigs (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I am offering this as a compromise, if you haven't been able to get with the picture here. It is a 3rd alternative to leaving this alone or having an admin press the delete button. As for if this is appropriate on the page itself, that is sort of outside the scope of this AfD and much more appropriate on the talk page, other than I happen to disagree with your sentiment about comparing cable channel assignments. I am not nearly so familiar with Brazilian television station and network in terms of how they advertise their cable channel numbers, but I know a number of "satellite networks" and even terrestrial broadcast stations that make active declarations in their advertising for what cable channel (or even channels as in different assignments on different cable networks) in promotional literature. I think this sentiment simply doesn't fit reality in how the information is actually being used. The IP analogy would be good except that the domain address is the IP address, or very easily translated in a one to one relationship. The cable channel, for notable (aka major representing a significant viewership in the market) cable networks and befitting WP:UNDUE and other standard Wikipedia policies. To include the cable network in a motel, I'd agree that is stupid. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• very clear delete, unencyclopedic directory content that belongs on the company's own webpage. Not even a single reference given; surprised that this even merits debate. Hairhorn (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

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.