Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic

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 no consensus. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has never had any references and is a magnet for vandalism (not unlike other "List of programs broadcast by xxx" articles). ... discospinster _talk 15:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of those are deletion arguments. Did you instead mean to say this information is unverifiable rather than merely presently lacking stated sources? postdlf (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is unverifiable. ... discospinster _talk 23:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Arguments for deletion are not actually reasons to delete. Bacchiad (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as typical list covered by WP:CSC #2 #1. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Strong case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Complete absence of references reflects absence of coverage in reliable sources, no indication as to notability, and no verification that any of the list entries in fact belong on the list. CSC#2 does not seem to apply for two reasons. First #2 addresses lists where entries fail notability criteria, not the case in this article. Second, ignoring the first reason, #2 suggest entries more likely belong in the parent article.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  02:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You are correct that I stated the wrong one. I fixed my !vote above to properly state #1 which does clearly apply here given that every entry already meets WP:GNG due to having a properly sourced article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2015 (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.