Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saturday morning preview specials


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was   keep.  MBisanz  talk 04:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Saturday morning preview specials

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an unsourced, cluttered trivial list. It's nothing more than an advertisement list of shows that helped promote new seasons of shows. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete Sadly I'd like to keep this, but this has no sources and pretty much reads more like a time capsule of the shows targeting kids and teens than it does as a serious examination of the subject. At best, I would merge the details of the CBS, NBC and ABC programs to the articles dealing with their individual Saturday morning blocks (Fox and WB/CW don't have any content needing to be merged).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  treelo  radda  10:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Lack of sources is not a reason for deletion is sources exist to confirm notability. Article need expansion and cleanup.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources exist.  They're going to be hard to find though, because they don't seem to be doing them much anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm going with a keep on this because these are verifable, nationally broadcast programs on major networks, and having a list like this is preferable to separate articles on same. Needs much better sourcing, however. 23skidoo (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep IMHO a notable topic but badly needs something in the currently empty "references" section. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.