Deletion of The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination)

Comment: Not only have the creators of the articles not been notified but it seems that some of the articles haven't been tagged, e.g. 1953–54 United States network television schedule.  I was contemplating closing this myself per  but the logistics of unpicking this mess are beyond my experience
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Essentially for the exact same reason as Edison. Mass nomination and reasoning isn't clear so does feel like it . Articles are sourced and don't seem to fully meet his points if at all
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per historical value and, Splash,  is an essay, not a guideline nor a policy, so you cannot nominate articles using that text as your support, since they have no weight on discussions or actions. Cheers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: As all of these network series are notable, these are indexes of article topics organized by a defining characteristic&mdash;the seasons and programming blocks in which they aired. Further, these network schedules are highly notable topics in their own right. Broadcast programming decisions, such as on which day to air a program, what shows lead in and out from a series on the same network, and against which series are a show competing, are a core part of the history of network television and are analyzed extensively in media criticism as a topic in and of itself. Often the very success or failure of a show will hinge upon its time slot; see Friday night death slot, for example, or look at the extensive commentary regarding NBC's decision to replace its traditional 10 pm drama block with the The Jay Leno Show every weeknight. I can't help but read such a nomination as arising from mere , or perhaps simple ignorance of the topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Edison put it alot better (and with a much cooler head) than I could to this textbook example of a "I don't like it" nomination. The fancruft essay is not policy, and certainly doesn't involve basic industry information like a television schedule in the least, and a proper notice to frequent contributors to these articles is certainly not canvassing at all. Finally, no sense  was followed at all by the nominator
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: The following y articles are nominated for deletion because |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, |Wikipedia is not a diary, |Wikipedia does not synthesise material to advance a position, |Wikipedia is not a blog for television fanatics and (perhaps most importantly) Wikipedia is . As with bus timetables and weather reports, TV schedules do not belong on Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:CRUFT||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOTDIARY||WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:NOTBLOG||WP:NOTTVGUIDE)

Comment: Per , "For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. These are "historically important programming lists and schedules." They are notable as shown by having multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage, or at least the prime time schedules are easily found to have significant coverage in books, magazines. They are a useful organizational tool with respect to the articles about the individual programs. No synthesis is needed to produce them. They are historic information, and not an "electronic program guide" someone will use to decide what to watch tonight. It is not realistic to compare a national prime time TV schedule with a weather report for one day, or with a bus schedule. I do not see how they are a "blog" as the nominator asserts, nor are they a "diary." They are not "indiscriminate."  The nominator's complaint that they  are "crufty" smacks of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: and '''|snowball close'''. all the comments listed above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)