Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartoon Network 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 Snow delete. No reason to keep this running. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network schedule

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

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

Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, and this article, which is also completely unreferenced, is therefore not of encyclopedic value. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Nate • (chatter) 21:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mrschimpf (Nate). Will speedy delete under A12 as soon as it is in effect. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 21:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT. Rorshacma (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably the most blatant case of WP:NOTTVGUIDE that I've seen this week Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don’t think there is a speedy deletion tag for this type of stuff, but there definitely should be. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, surely this could of been speedy'ed? Govvy (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can think of a criterion, feel free to tag the article. But I think Foxnpichu is exactly right on this one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Honestly, AfD'ing this puts this entire 'children's networks should have schedule articles here' topic in the grave once and for all, so I don't begrudge EW for just bringing it here rather than having to deal with the inevitable 'SD-restore-SD-restore' war that would happen. Nate • (chatter) 01:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 09:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    
    A criterion is under discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#New_speedy_delete_criterion_(Not_for_Wikipedia) AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 21:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done because proposal failed. @Extraordinary Writ: suggested a category for SNOW deletes.
    
    Do you think we could go to the Village Pump and suggest a new speedy tag? Maybe something along the lines of "unambiguous violation of manual of style" or something like that? Foxnpichu (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 16:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing... Link will be provided later. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 18:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Extraordinary Writ: Well, A German High court says TV schedule falls under copyright law. Per [1], so this is a possible G12, and you could also say it's promoting the schedule, which could be classed as G11. Govvy (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The US has copyright laws similar to this. It is a WP:G12. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 16:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone find a URL for this schedule? Regards, AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 16:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked at WP:G11, and it is probably that. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 16:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ and Govvy: Should I put the G11 template on the page? AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 16:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, an A12 criterion (not for Wikipedia) is under discussion. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 18:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let it SNOW, let it SNOW, let it SNOW. At this point, a G11 or G12 is just gilding the lily, and it probably wouldn't succeed anyway. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G12 - not so sure. G11 - no URL. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 20:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will tag it as G11 soon. {{ProposalOnHold}} for now. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 20:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: I agree. Do you think we have a consensus? AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 20:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I think most any admin would close this as a SNOW delete without a second thought. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: Should I tag as G11 or G12 or none yet? AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 20:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None. Just wait for someone to close the AfD under SNOW. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, who should it be? AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 20:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: We need an admin. Can you find one? AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 20:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: We need an admin. Can you find one? AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 21:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. it must be speedy. DoctorsHub (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:SNOW. JayJay^{What did I do?} 06:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a consensus now. We have 8 Delete !votes. Let's close this in a day or 2. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 08:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any more discussion. This should be deleted. Can someone find an admin to end this?AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 09:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it with a generic CSD tag, since there is no other way I can think of for gently paging the group of admins willing to look at AfD closes.----Pontificalibus 13:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there should be a better way to request a speedy close. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So do I, but I don't know if it exists.----Pontificalibus 18:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontificalibus: Me neither. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 18:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At 20:20, Extraordinary Writ said: "A G11 or G12 is just gilding the lily". G12 - not so sure. G11 - no URL. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 20:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: We need an admin. Can you find one? AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 08:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete per others. No conceivable way this could be kept.----Pontificalibus 13:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just put the notice on the talk page of the creator. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 16:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will put the notice on the article soon. @Extraordinary Writ: Should I? AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 08:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we have a consensus (9 Delete !votes to 0 Keep !votes). This AfD needs to be closed and the article deleted. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 16:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this mess. Fails pretty much every single content policy I can think of. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zin Win Hlaing: Lt might be a WP:G11 as well. AnotherEditor144^{talk contribs} 12:27, 15 February 2021 (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.