Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
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
— User:Levivich, 23:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:A||WP:A||WP:A||WP:NOTTVGUIDE||WP:V (Wikipedia:Attribution)