Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 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) 05:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1983 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) 11:18, 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) 11:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Megabytes of discussion taking place on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Per station television schedules Power.corrupts (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and find sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, Wikipedia is not TV guide. -- œ ^™ 18:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic. List of information, not list of indiscriminate information. A record of a 1983 TV schedule cannot possibly qualify as a "TV Guide" in any common usage of that term, a TV guide is used for guidance on what you want to watch in the future, not what played eons ago. A major discussion was started to avoid temperaments flaring out of control and should be allowed to conclude before new nominations are taking place - comment there. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Pending the provision of some sources which contextualize the schedules, is is just a matrix of shows and times. The existence of an RfC on the subject doesn't preempt debate on individual issues. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defer (so keep, for now) until the discussion at WP:NOT concludes. I suspect the result will be that an article like this will be allowed, provided it is cited to a secondary source. But it's probably best to have one big discussion than lots of little ones. — PyTom (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without prejudice to the rest of your comment, it has no secondary source at present. And for that matter, its primary source is a dead link, so it's not even verifiable. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources. Can anybody find sources on this? Note that it is daytime, not primetime. Abductive (reasoning) 00:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No commentary or critique cited to indicate that this schedule is "historically significant" as required by WP:NOTDIR (Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide). --Cybercobra (talk) 04:19, 25 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) 12:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence that this schedule is notable. If they were, then we would expect to see some sort of basic information above and beyond the schedules themselves: who drew them up, how they were developed, what the objectives of the schedules were, and whether they were successful or not in achieving these. This type of encyclopedic information is absent, which is a symptom of a disinct lack of significant coverage, and so they fail WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:40, 26 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.