Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1966 Australian network television schedule (weekday)

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1966 Australian network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous AfDs on similar articles can be found here, here, here. Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other previous AFDs of interest include this, this, and this. So there's no clear precedent. Ultimately, the result of this debate will depend on who closes it. (And if I may say so, Backslash Forwardslash's reasoning in the debates he closed makes little sense to me. The delete voters offered little more than "Delete, indiscriminate/unencyclopedic", while keep voters like Edison and Mandsford offered much lengthier arguments, which actually quote WP:NOT.) Zagalejo^^^ 17:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - not notable and fails WP:IINFO Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if all of these pages (1966, 1972, 1983 etc) were to be put/linked/referenced into one larger comparative article with descriptions about important ideas/decisions/trends/events/comments etc etc. Otherwise, as is, theyre of limited use...Jabberjawjapan (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So that's merge rather than keep? Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Sarah 11:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence that this schedule is notable because there isn't any significant coverage in the form of commentary from a reliable secondary source. If there was, then the reader could obtain basic information above and beyond the schedule itself: who drew it up, how it was developed, what the objectives of the schedule was, and whether it was successful or not in achieving these. Encyclopedic coverage that could provide context to the reader is absent, which is why it fails WP:N and WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. And that means I agree with the noms reasoning, so skip the lectures about "just voting"). Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2009 (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.