Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1972 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. — Jake Wartenberg 01:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1972 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) 11:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous AfD's. --Lithorien (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE but is also unsourced and not isn't encyclopaedic for Wikipedia. It would be best suited on a Television history Wiki then here. Bidgee (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources. Plus there's a high level discussion about these article on the NOT talk page.- Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These might be acceptable if presented in an encyclopedic context within actual articles, but as things stand, there is no article here—just undigested and uncontextualized data, which is what WP:INDISCRIMINATE forbids. (And that goes for all such "articles", including ones consisting of US schedules.) Whether the content is verifiable is beside the point. Deor (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I agree with Deor; simply reporoducing the schedules provides no encyclopedic coverage other than the primary source. There needs to be some evidence of notability in the form of commentary, otherwise this fails WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Bidgee and others above. Sarah 11:58, 30 August 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.