Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movieola

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. Davewild (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movieola[edit]

This article was originally deleted as part of a group AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. DRV determined that the group listing was improper; therefore, this article is relisted individually. Delete, given lack of reliable sources and notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW... how can you say "given lack of reliable sources", it has references from Playback Magazine and The Globe and Mail. I also just added a reference from Variety. These are very reliable and independent sources. MusiMax (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable article, many references added, no reason to delete. MusiMax (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Google brings up some mentionings that show the channel has "gotten around", none of which however qualify as a reliable source. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 15:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are reliable sources, they talk about it's launch, they made a major deal to be distributed via Joost and they also talk about other dealings with the channel including ownership. They are reliable sources, all of which are independent, and there are many other sources on the net as well, these are only a select few. They article is fine the way it is, but it can also improve with time. MusiMax (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a real cable channel, I can't see how it isn't notable. Moheroy (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 03:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the company that operates it isn't sufficiently notable under WP:CORP, a licensed cable channel which is available across an entire country most certainly is notable enough under both existing practice and the media policy that's currently in development. Keep. Bearcat 21:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed in some detail in the cited references including The Globe and Mail and Variety. Keep. --Paul Erik 23:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. GJ 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that a national cable channel is inherently notable. Skeezix1000 13:16, 3 December 2007 (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.