Deletion of 2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday)

Comment: Ironclad case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: This should be an obvious delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, a directory, or a TV guide. It's an obvious example of what |Wikipedia is not. I personally cannot comprehend how this is possibly historically significant
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: and, to closing admin, my !vote to the other Australian TV Guide articles is '''Delete''' as well. I could go through a list of  examples, but, this one's pretty much common sense
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: a clear case of , as far as I can see, and the above Keep comments don't convince me otherwise
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: unless sources are provided as to why this is ''|Historically significant
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: WP:NOTDIR.  As some delete voters have done, I also copy my comments made  at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States network television schedules (same nominator, same topic, same batch):  The deletion rationale: "a classic case of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly " defies imagination.  It is not only grossly misleading but downright counterfactual as this type of information is specifically mentioned and even ''wiki-linked'' in  as acceptable.   While I would like to ''assume'' |good faith my olfactory organ informs me that the nomination does not pass the smell test.  The present outcome is pretty obvious: - divisive stuff that turns Wikipedia into a battleground
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:AGF)