Perfunctory discussion   There are three references for the entirety of this article which was created   years ago There are a ton of date ranges that are unsupported in any way The content likely doesnt meet WPV and the burden is on the contributor to provide references This latest content is unsourced and was challenged I respect Electricbursts contributions and hard work but I dont think this reversion is sound and consensus for excluding the content already exists in the guideline and policy cited above At some point we need to either start demanding references for this questionable content or remove it altogether Allowing the continuous addition of unsourced date ranges does nothing to strengthen these flimsy list of programs articles as there is zero presumption that any of the content is accurate in any way