Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Net channels
Unfortunately, I missed the early part of the debate when the precedent and momentum for mass deletion was set.  However, I feel the argument for deletion in some cases has been flawed. Whilst I accept consensus can change. My understanding of the original meaning of  was that it was to combat a trend in TV/Radio station articles to publish the entire schedule of the station in question.  In that case I  agree that Wikipedia should not try and replicate that. However, I feel that channel line-ups are not the same thing. In many cases they are sourcable. Furthermore, whilst subscribers have ready access to some (i.e. the EPG position) of this information, non-subscribers don't.  A further argument presented is that they are purely "marketing tools" of the platform provider. I don't believe this is necessarily true. On services where you dont actually have to subscribe to receive some (of even many) channels the articles shine a light (in a way that service providers never would) to what a subscriber is actually paying for.  This may not be true of the article in question and this may or may not be fixable (cable is probably more closed than a satellite platfrom
— User:Pit, 11:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOTDIR (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)