Deletion of ESPN College Football on ABC results

Comment: per , being an indiscriminate collection of information and a TV guide. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: violates #INFO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Not encyclopedic. ; (TVGUIDE also
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (:WP:NOT||:WP:NOTTVGUIDE)

Comment: per  and the argument made by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT)

Comment: Wikipedia isn't a |T.V. guide. If it's kept, {{em|remove}} the "time" column. Corkythe
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTVGUIDE)

Comment: I'm a little less convinced on this one, but I don't like how the nominator neglected to explain in his nomination statement how this article violates . It is the nominator's job to do the legwork in gathering evidence to demonstrate why the article should be deleted. He did not do that. How are we supposed to evaluate the nom's argument if all we are given is "Per ". Per what part of ? How does that part apply? Also, I am not impressed by the nom's effort to silence a keep !voter, especially since the !voter in question, unlike the nom, had the courtesy to do more than merely link a policy and make a vague claim
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Not notable as per above. With regards to {{ping|Paulmcdonald}}, yes, the series itself is notable, and we have an article for it, but the results of each individual game are not notable enough for an article. Generally for routine sports broadcasts, we have one article for the main subject NFL on CBS, Fox Major League Baseball, etc. but there's absolutely no need to have a list of results for every single game. It's  at best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)