Deletion of 1977 Australian network television schedule (weekday)

Comment: I agree with Mandsford. A national TV schedule can be encyclopedic. Perhaps someone could check for references, in the form of Australian TV columnists discussing the scheduling decisions back in the day, or books about the history of TV in that country. There is an explicit niche left for such an article in . This is an international encyclopedia, so the NOTDIR mention of the US schedules does not limit notability to that one country
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: As a matter of policy, I don't think that its unencyclopedic, or that articles of this nature are barred.  I think there's an exception in , section 4, "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable."  Still, this seems to have more problems than the 1982 schedule that got booed off the stage in August.  As nominator points out, it's not verified; maybe these reruns were seen nationwide and not just in Victoria.  I guess it illustrates the dearth of original programming back then, but it doesn't look much different from the daytime listings for what you'd find on a Los Angeles TV schedule back in 1977
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: violates the letter and spirit of #DIR
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't count.  I don't care that the US network schedules are acceptable.  Prove that Australia had a national network in the 70s - I remember () that in the 80s, Melbourne TV was different to Perth TV.  Verify that columnists reflect on past schedules.  Show that it is notable.  Show that is accurate for at least most of the year and it wasn't variable during the year. I think it has too many holes and question marks to be suitable for wikipedia.  I would assume that the article creator got the list from some source... why didn't he reference it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)