Deletion of 1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

Comment: Violations of  and .  If people interested in these articles can't be bothered to source them after, in some cases, nearly ten years, I don't see why Wikipedia should continue to indulge them.  No sources = no article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:V)

Comment: Unsourced for a number of years, no evidence of notability and no effort whatsoever to bring these up to standard despite previous AfD's. Most of the previous 'keep' votes were swayed towards  rather than actual policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: per nomination. The contested articles explicitly violate . Results of past AfDs that might have ignored  are irrelevant; editors can often go wrong in their suggestions and thus form a misguided consensus: Wikipedia's aforementioned guidelines have not been affected. Editors who suggest Keeping the article are invoking those guidelines without providing the exact text in them that permits this type of lists to appear in Wikipedia. Of course, there is no such text
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTVGUIDE||WP:NOTTVGUIDE)

Comment: I believe these, in their current state, fail to show notability. I also don't think they can be notable in the current article scheme, but maybe an article that deals with programming in each decade, which has much more context to it, could be. But that is not an argument that this article could be better, its an argument that this article is not and never will be that article. As I've stated above, they also fail  and . As to comment above, those articles aren't any better. They are a giant  and while the article you linked to has some references, the two inline ones, one has almost nothing to do with the article content, the other does not support notability (for the subject), it just gives verification for the ratings
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOTTVGUIDE||WP:NOTTVGUIDE)

Comment: the one that was already deleted as a ludicrous violation of  attempting to override the consensus of multiple previous AfDs with vastly more participation (very curious to know why
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS)

Comment: for the reasons listed in the rticles_for_deletion/The_US_network_TV_schedule_articles|2007 RfD discussion (result: default keep), rticles_for_deletion/The_US_network_TV_schedule_articles (2nd_nomination)|2012 RfD discussion (result: keep), and rticles_for_deletion/2014–15_United_States_network_television_schedule (Saturday_morning)|2015 RfD discussion (result: keep), and the links in those discussions to outside articles discussing the significance of TV scheduling.  says "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable," and these TV schedules are historically significant. Television is one of our primary methods of mass communication and cultural transmission, and the first 100 years of television is still "early television." The schedule of early TV broadcasts seems no less relevant than 1896_Summer_Olympics#Calendar|an early modern Olympics schedule (FA-class), Shakespeare_in_performance#Performances_during_Shakespeare's_lifetime|the dates/years of performances during Shakespeare's lifetime (B-class), or Global_spread_of_the_printing_press#Dates_by_location|a schedule of who was printing what where in the first 100 years of the printing press (B-class).  is Verifi'''ability'''; these schedules are verifiable, and are sourced in at least some (many?) of the schedules. I'm a new editor and don't understand all these policies, but I thought inline sourcing isn't required, and a lack of sourcing is a reason to expand an article, not delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:A||WP:A||WP:NOTTVGUIDE||WP:V)

Comment: per wording of  and reasons given in previous unsuccessful AfDs linked to by Levivich and Postdlf
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTVGUIDE)