Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Canadian network television schedule

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Canadian network television schedule

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

advertising The Banner talk 13:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we have 2016–17 United States network television schedule, I don't see the problem with having its Canadian counterpart. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Advertising?! Are you serious? There are 12 other Canadian telvision network schedules and this article is simply this season's counterpart. Heartfox (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am serious. The Banner talk 19:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look, just because there isn't always Variety, The Futon Critic, or TV by the Numbers to source Canadian telvision schedules doesn't mean it's advertising. And also, advertising for what? There are four different major Canadian broadcasting companies. This isn't a page because I wan't to "advertise for them", it's here because there are twelve other pages, and the fact that I wanted to expand the knowledge of this subject, similarily to the articles in the United States on this subject. Heartfox (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure how its advertising. You could make a wider argument per WP:NOTTVGUIDE but considering other Canadian and US schedules exist, this is simply the next iteration. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Every article is judged on its own merits... The Banner talk 10:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - What exactly constitues advertising in this article? What exactly are you referring to when you say the article is an advertisement and that other current television schedules in other countries aren't? Heartfox (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - In what way are the merits of this article different than the merits of the USian one? Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of an ongoing series of TV schedules in the US and Canada. I disagree with the nominator's rationale. PK T(alk) 14:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may be a legitimate case to be made that we shouldn't keep any such articles at all, but there's no good reason to single out Canadian ones as somehow less inherently notable or more inherently "advertorial" than comparable USian articles that are being kept. I might be inclined to support a comprehensive and well-reasoned argument that we should delete all of these including the USian ones per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, but I'm definitely not willing to support singling out the Canadian ones for unique treatment not being extended to the USian versions of the exact same thing. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- agree with others' rationale that it seems odd to single out Canadian schedule. I know that this sounds exactly the opposite of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but I'm not sure if either should be deleted. Perhaps an RfC on the overall topic would be helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2016 (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.