Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Astro channels

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 keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Astro channels

Listing of channels is un-notable so is the listing of pricing of said channels. Reads like an advert , has no real encyclopedic value. suggest delete Talk to Magibon 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This belongs on Astro's website, not Wikipedia. We are not a tv channel directory. I feel for the editor who put all the work into those tables but still. The red links in the template at the bottom of the page portend related AfDs. Drawn Some (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't TV Guide, and shouldn't try to be. --John Nagle (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Channel lineups for a national-level service are notable as they are part of the country's infrastructure and are illustrative of the programming available. Such lists are very useful when there is breaking news at the international level, when coordinating with people in various countries, i.e. "Can you get XYZ specialized network on channel 837?". If this was a cable service serving one particular town that would be a different story. The pricing can go as we don't generally cover pricing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Other satellite companies have channel lists on Wikipedia -- why can't this one? -- azumanga (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people might start citing an essay called OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, even though I'd feel that coverage of this topic should be uniform throughout the world. But the point is the list is useful to people outside of Malaysia for a variety of reasons such as keeping up with foreign news or the study of worldwide media markets. The encylopedic value of having these lists on wiki instead of simply linking to a corporate site is that they can be woven into the fabric of Wikipedia and can be grouped into regional categories such as DBS providers in East Asia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keeep the list; remove the pricing. This is very far from the meaning of TV guide, which would be an frequently updated current list of the programs on all of them. DGG (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean-up; I've already removed the pricing info (which I agree SHOULD remain on their own site), but the channel listing does have an encyclopedic use for the study and research of worldwide television broadcasting. The channel list would be better served if it were placed in full numeric order however. --mhking (talk) 15:28, 22 June 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.