List of Australian Open broadcasters: Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?  The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN .  Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE .  As of sources per WP:RS : three of those are about announcment of deals, one is a listing of TV schedules, one just quotes the tourney in passing which has no relevance to this list.  Checked WP:BEFORE which resulted in nothing.  I would have no objections to a keep if the article was in the same quality of List of Wimbledon broadcasters .  See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Tennis , Lists ,  and Australia .  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) and WP:NOTTVGUIDE .  LibStar ( talk ) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - except this one has better sourcing than the deleted French Open article.  It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we delete it.  Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the deleteion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better.  What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article. ?  Fyunck(click) ( talk ) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I do not feel strongly about this page, but I do find the reasons for deletion to be garbage.   This is not a TV guide, neither was the French Open page or any other of the tennis tournament broadcasters pages.   This statement about the page "to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?"  I find to be the most nonsense.   This page is not bloated at all.   Since when is something listed in an encyclopedia only because it is popular?   The whole point about an encyclopedia (particularly an online one that is not limited in size by printing costs) is that it should contain obscure information (I am not sure a listing of which networks broadcast a major tennis event is that obscure anyway).   I would never request any page on wikipedia be deleted, as this goes against what I believe wikipedia should be about.   If editors feel pages are not sourced well that is a different issue.   If I feel that is the case when I look at a page, I look to find sources (in this page's case many sources may be broadcasts of finals which list the commentators).   The only problematic issue with this page (and other Grand Slam TV broadcasters history pages) is that TV broadcast contracts are merging into online streaming contracts (with various limitations to customers based on location) and keeping up with all the different streaming contracts may be problematic going forward.   But the pages still have a value when looking back on the era when events were broadcast on TV (for the time being Wimbledon is still broadcast on conventional TV by the BBC, though maybe not for much longer).   This change to streaming could easily be overcome by a simple statement "in recent years the event has been available on a variety of streaming services".   The No TV guide wikipedia policy that the deletion proposer posted a link to says the following: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable."  That clearly shows a primary reason for deletion of this article and others like it is bogus.  Tennishistory1877 ( talk ) 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Soft Weak Delete After some due research within the scope of the Australian Open, I have come to the conclusion that as a list , the topic fails WP:LISTN , but as a prose, it has more potential as its own article.  If the closer determines that, then I would suggest that we consider moving this article to just be History of Australian Open broadcasts , remove the WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:OR , and keep the sources that actually commit notability to this topic.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Very little original research in this article.   Finals commentators can be known by watching the matches.   YouTube videos could be used as sources for this (including from official channels).   It is of interest to some to know the finals commentators.  Tennishistory1877 ( talk ) 13:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Watching the match then placing down what you saw is WP:OR .  YouTube is considered WP:TERTIARY due to its unreliability.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 15:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Linking to online videos can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission."  More and more videos from long ago are being published on YouTube from official tennis sources, particularly the Australian Open (they are currently undertaking a project uploading a lot of their archive from 1975 onwards).   A very good source of who is commentating on a match is the match itself provided by the tournament itself (just about as reliable as it can possibly be).   And wikipedia policy seems to agree with that.   The No original research policy states "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research."  Tennishistory1877 ( talk ) 18:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Given that information, and some due thought, the videos that the Open produce via YouTube or distributable under the rights of the Open to their respective broadcasting partners, are therefore WP:PRIMARY .  So, basically, a source that demonstrates some significant coverage of who calls the game, commentates, reports, etc. would have to be done by a secondary source, like if a local tv station called out who was doing it.  I am not saying it's a bad source, just that it wouldn't qualify for the main thing I am arguing for: WP:LISTN .  Conyo14 ( talk ) 05:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a stand-alone list.   Regarding primary sources, "a primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge".   Obviously the wikipedia policy has to be careful to ensure that, for example, an article written about a political party does not solely use as its source the political party's official website.  Not relevant to a broadcast of the Australian Open, where the commentators are mentioned (incidentally there are many other videos of the same matches not posted by the official YouTube channel of the tournament which have the same commentary).  What this whole thing about is one editor copying and pasting deletion requests and posting them on many pages based on bogus reasons, referencing wikipedia policy articles that he clearly hasn't read.   This editor does not seem to be contributing much to wikipedia (certainly not anything to this article), and is only intent on destroying and removing perfectly valid material.   And you Conyo14, seem to be acting as a tag team with this editor.   In common with the original poster, you seem to show no interest in the subject matter (even admitting so in your comments here) yet despite this seem intent on giving your views on whether this article should be removed, quoting wikipedia policy articles you clearly have not read, then when your ignorance is shown up, quoting other articles.   There has already been one ANI trying to ban the user posting this deletion request and there may be more if this user continues to behave in this way.   Why don't both users consider spending their time more productively, creating rather than destroying.  Tennishistory1877 ( talk ) 08:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey!  I don't appreciate your tone here, perhaps you need to stop replying here as your accusations of a tag team are mislead as well as my interpretations of a policy that are not unfounded.  You're welcome to continue your usage of your interpretation of the policy as well as mine, because as far as that goes, it won't matter until the relister does their judgment.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 13:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It wasn't me that first used the term "tag team", it was another editor that I do not know on the ANI, but it seems a pretty accurate description to me. I read the following text that you posted on the deletion proposer's user page, regarding the mass posting of deletion requests.  "It's getting exhausting pressing copy and paste on these haha. Good work though on these. I definitely recommend slowing down a bit though. I'm not sure by how much, but one prior editor had a run going and then was formally warned to slow down in WP:ANI. You may create a user space here for the lists you wish to delete, that way you don't lose track of them".  Those comments speak for themselves.  I have quoted wikipedia policy documents that you and the deletion proposer have quoted throughout, showing how ridiculous your interpretations of them are (not surprising really, considering a lot of the text in the posts proposing deletion had very similar text on deletion requests for many pages which vary immensely).   I have nothing personal against you, Conyo14, but your interventions here and on other removal pages do you no credit.   I have not commented on the vast majority of the hundreds of pages which the user has requested for deletion, because they are on sports that I have no interest in, and I have a rule that I never edit or comment on subjects that do not interest me.   But I agree there is little to be gained by a protracted argument.   The wikipedia policies speak for themselves, as does the edit history of the editor proposing the deletion.  Tennishistory1877 ( talk ) 16:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] k Conyo14 ( talk ) 16:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Conyo14 , this discussion can't be closed as a "Soft Delete" as there are editors arguing for "Keeping" this article.  Therefore, deletion is not uncontroversial and Soft Deletion is not appropriate.  Soft Deletions are similar to Proposed Deletions and so if Deletion is contested, then SD can't be a closure result.  L iz Read!  Talk!  00:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:LISTN due to a lack of references from secondary sources discussing the broadcasters as a set.  Let'srun ( talk ) 13:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Let'srun, I am struggling to see where the notability here comes from to meet the LISTN threshold.  While a secondary consideration as AfD is not cleanup, there's far too much original research here for my liking too — representative in my opinion of the lack of secondary sources covering this topic, hence the LISTN concerns.  Daniel ( talk ) 23:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have a good knowledge of the level of accuracy of this article (the accuracy level is high).   I would not defend an article that was not accurate.   There are numerous sources already, primary and secondary, but I have added more.  Tennishistory1877 ( talk ) 08:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your personal knowledge of the content included in this article is of minimal relevance, per WP:OR .  But that is not the primary reason I believe this should be deleted.  It is the failure of meeting the LISTN threshold through independent, reliable secondary sources that mean this should be deleted.  Daniel ( talk ) 11:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per Tennihistory1877.  The article has potential and room to be improved, and I do not see deletion as justified, considering that the article contains verifiable and sourced information.  Clone commando sev ( talk ) 04:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merely containing "verifiable and sourced information" is not the threshold for keeping a list; WP:LISTN is.  Daniel ( talk ) 11:10, 5 June 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete