Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by CITV

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by CITV

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Massive list of unoriginal programming. Clearly violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE, the few original shows are already discussed at CITV#Programming, so there is nothing to merge. No objection to a redirect to parent. // Timothy :: talk 07:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know this is probably going to be kept because of ITSNOTABLE editors will go on and on about why this should be kept and overwhelm policy arguments, but this is a lousy list, badly formatted (with odd detours about other unrelated things), its sourcing is terrible, to a bare-bones listing site that only sources things fourteen days out (thus it does not have the sources now), along with a competitor to ITV. It also contains films, which are never a part of any list of network article because anyone can buy any movie to air at any time. It's also a regular protection target because of IP vandalism; this list is better served by the category system. Nate • (chatter) 23:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT – There's a reasonable chance to build a proper list for this topic. However, in its current state, it's too difficult to sort original or first-run programming (worthy of inclusion) from acquired programming/reruns (not worthy of inclusion). RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2023 (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.