Deletion of 1996 in Australian television

Comment: I am not sure in the nomination the point of the comment ''The pages for *Year* in Australian television all do not seem to include an article. They are merely lists that provide little or no notable content. Pages have already been deleted before because of their consisting of only a template with broken links to uncreated pages. Most pages also seem to need references and most can be considered stubs.''  Red links and stubs are both OK on Wikipedia and neither are reasons to delete.  Lists are also OK.  Note that notability guidelines do not limit content of lists except when it comes to people - see .  I have not been able to find a specific guidleline for television but there is a comprehensive wikiproject and perhaps they can shed more light
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NNC)

Comment: Some of these "19XX in Australian television" articles were deleted recently because they contained no content apart from the navbox and that's fair enough, however if there is sustainable content I see no reason to delete the article. As Matilda says, stubs and lists are fine and articles are not required to contain prose. If you look at the more recent articles such as 2007 in Australian television, you'll see that they are intended to be quite well-referenced listings of series debuts, endings and channel changes, as well as notable events in television. If someone wants to work on a Mexican television article, so be it, if not there's no need to delete articles people are willing and able to work on (see 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)