Sports broadcasting contracts in Croatia : Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Sports , Europe ,  and Croatia .  BrigadierG ( talk ) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep honestly don't think WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here, since this isn't a list of when programmes will be on television but rather information on rights holders for important events - this isn't the best article, needs better referencing, but I think it could either be better solved through editing (adding more sources) or a better deletion nomination (that those sources don't exist).  SportingFlyer T · C 04:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:MUSTBESOURCES .  From what I see, coverage of TV rights doesn't really go much deeper for most countries than just announcements that a certain channel now has broadcasting rights.  There are some exceptions, for example where sports broadcasting rights are discussed as a subject for critical analysis, but in the majority of cases this information is just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE pile-up of commercial facts - see WP:ROUTINE .  BrigadierG ( talk ) 16:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That wasn't my argument, but thank you.  SportingFlyer T · C 19:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:UGLY - "asserting that an article merely needs improvement to withstand a deletion nomination is not a persuasive argument to retain it. Perhaps improvement in the form of adding multiple references to reliable, independent, non-trivial discussion of the subject would indeed demonstrate its notability, but asserting that an article "needs improvement, not deletion" is not the same as providing evidence of such a possibility."  BrigadierG ( talk ) 23:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of which is related to you incorrectly applying NOTTVGUIDE.  SportingFlyer T · C 23:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list.  As with referencing, what is there?  News announcments?  Is that all?  This is what lists about sport broadcasters are plaqued with.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 23:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What does it matter even if they were "only" announcements?  As long as the information is verifiable/trustworthy that's really all that matters.  Shadess ( talk ) 12:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it don't.  Merely announcments does not make a subject notable on their own, neither does a mostly unsourced list.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Don't see any reason for deleting these articles.  There is encyclopedic value to them.  Keep the page around, tag it for improving refs and move along.  Shadess ( talk ) 12:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] How are they encyclopedic?  This website is already plaqued with low quality lists such as this.  SpacedFarmer ( talk ) 18:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BELONG BrigadierG ( talk ) 21:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 18:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  This is just a directory.  Mccapra ( talk ) 21:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Inherently against WP:NOTDIR * Pppery * it has begun... 02:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Wikipedia is not a directory, fails the criteria set by WP:NLIST .  Let'srun ( talk ) 19:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete