Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1984 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. Indiscriminate information without any encyclopedic context. ~ mazca ^talk 10:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1984 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 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) 11:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 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) 12:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Bidgee and others above. Sarah 11:56, 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) 13:00, 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.