Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BuyNOW TV

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BuyNOW TV[edit]

[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)

Article about a shortlived cable television channel, not properly referenced as clearing either WP:NMEDIA or WP:GNG. This channel operated in a class of services that are exempt from having to have broadcast licenses, which means it isn't "inherently" notable under NMEDIA -- and it existed exclusively to broadcast infomercials, which means there was nothing "inherently" notable about any of its programming either. But the sources here -- the CRTC's general exemption policy for this type of service (which predates this channel's existence by 19 years and thus fails to mention it at all), a glancing mention of its existence in a (deadlinked) piece about a competing service, and one very short blurb about its launch in an industry trade magazine -- is not enough to get it over GNG. The only source here that's contributing any notability points at all is the Media in Canada hit, but it's not contributing enough notability points in and of itself if it's the only notability-assisting source on offer. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I'd like an article for every network ever, networks like this, which used a loophole to air nothing but DRTV ad loops and infomercials otherwise ignored by 98% of the viewing public, just plain doesn't meet WP:N. We have infomercial networks here, but they have something outstanding (like OnTV4U's OTA distribution or like Access Television Network, earned WP:N based on angering hockey and basketball fans for their existence under a now well-shut loophole) which allow them that N. It just isn't found here since it was confined to an easily ignored channel space. Nate • (chatter) 01:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article has existed for 5+ years with no issues, the channel existed for about 3 years, there's 3 articles referencing it (I fixed the deadlink so they all work now), it was launched in millions of homes through Rogers Cable (one of the largest TV providers in Canada) and smaller systems such as V Media and Zazeem, it's a unique original brand (not like a local version of some international channel), I see no reason why it playing infomercials is not worthy of an article, and I see it has relevance by way of its connection to Evan Kosiner, the guy who launched the channel, has his own article, and its one of many companies he launched or tried to launch. musimax. (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The notability test for a Wikipedia article is not "the thing existed", it is "the thing was the subject of enough reliable source coverage about it to clear WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH". So if you want it kept, where's the GNG-making media coverage about it? Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

musimax. (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Evan Kosiner. Deletion is the wrong way to go when there is encyclopedic information and a clear merger target. Modernponderer (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That BLP article is a WP:PROMO/WP:RESUME quagmire (and none of his channels with CRTC approval ever came to the air) and deserves deletion or a complete WP:TNTing (consider this a support for either). Rare that I say this on AFD, but hell no to any kind of merger with his article. Nate • (chatter) 01:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:NMEDIA, for a cable television channel "Cable television - Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable. Public access cable stations are not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area. For example, a statewide public access channel, or a channel for all of New York City could be presumed notable." So, this was a national channel with about 2 million subscribers from multiple distributors (Rogers, V Media, and Zazeen), as per the cited source in the article. Even if you were to label it as a lowly public access channel, with 2 million subs or more, I'd say that is objectively notable. When you look at the notability guidelines you sourced, there are 5 items: 1) Significant coverage, the media sources mentioned discuss the topic in detail and directly, and its not a trivial mention, and although its 2 articles, there is no mention about how many numbers it must be so I'd say, Yes, that ones met; 2) Reliable: both sources have editorial integrity and are independent from eachother and wrote their own separate articles, so Check that one off; 3) Sources: this is what the definition is "should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." As you can see in the article, there are multiple sources (2), they are secondary sources and provide objective research, and as the definition states, there need not be any specific number of sources, except multiple, of which 2 can count as multiple; 4) Independent of the subject: this excludes works produced by the article's subjects owner or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. As you can see from the article, the 2 sources are not owned or affiliated with BuyNow TV or themselves, and the articles are also not advertising, press releases, autobiographies, or from BuyNow TV's website, so thats another Check; and finally 5) Presumed: this one from what I can tell, just assures that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and when you look at that definition, this article does not meet that definition either which is, it's not a summary-only descriptions of works, lyric database, excessive listings of unexplained statistics, or an exhaustive logs of software updates. So its a check on this one as well. So, in summary of all this.... BuyNow TV is an objective article that stands on the merits of itself by Wikipedias own standards and should be kept. If it meets Wikipedias own guidelines, then it should be an automatic Keep. [revote struck] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musimax (talk • contribs)

NMEDIA explicitly states that TV channels are not exempted from having to get over GNG or CORPDEPTH just because they exist — the notability test is never just the things the article says, but the quality and depth and range of the references that can be shown to support the things it says. But I've already explained above why the references here are not cutting it: one is just the CRTC's general policy on this type of service, which does not mention this channel at all as it predates this channels existence by 19 years, and thus counts for nothing toward making this channel notable at all because it is not about this channel. A second source merely mentions this channel's existence in passing, in the process of being about a competing service owned by a different company, and thus counts for nothing toward making this channel notable at all because it is not about this channel. And the only source present here that is about this channel is a short blurb, not a substantive piece of coverage, and thus does not represent enough coverage to get this channel over the notability bar all by itself — even just a basic GNG pass requires more than just one source that's actually about the channel. It's true that GNG doesn't require a specific fixed number of sources, but it does require more than just one blurb. And again, NMEDIA does not grant television channels a free exemption from having to have sufficient sources to clear GNG just because they existed — NMEDIA very explicitly states, in fact, that the notability criteria for TV channels still requires reliable source coverage about the channel, and that television and radio broadcasters are not exempted from having to clear GNG just because they existed.

But also, please note that you are not allowed to "vote" more than once in an AFD discussion: you may comment as many times as you like, but your followup comments may not contain a bolded restatement of the "keep" vote you've already given. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by all of the info I noted above, it meets all 5 notability standards. The info you mention about the CRTC article, that it doesn't mention the channel, is 19 years before the channel launched, and counting nothing towards the channel being reliable is all opinion. So what if its 19 years before the channel launched? Wikipedia has, from what I can tell, no rule on such timelines for references. It's relevant because it notes the channel is subject to this rule (even if not in name) and doesn't have a licence, unlike the majority of other Canadian channels which need one. musimax. (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by what I said, with the added bonus that NMEDIA backs me up. NMEDIA requires a media outlet to be the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to clear our notability standards — regardless of the topic, the notability test is never just the things the article says, but is always the quality of the sources that can be shown to support the things it says. It is entirely relevant that the CRTC decision dates from 19 years before this channel existed — because that fact means that source is not about this channel, and thus does not constitute evidence of this channel's notability. The rule is not that as long as the article has footnotes in it, the topic is automatically notable enough for inclusion here — to constitute support for a topic's notability, a source has to be about that topic, and sources which either (a) briefly mention the topic in the process of being about something else, or (b) don't mention the topic at all, but are present merely to verify a stray fact, are not support for a topic's notability. That is how notability works on here: a source only speaks to the notability of the topic in question if that source is directly about that topic. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I continue to support Bearcat's reasoning for deletion; NMEDIA and the fact this is an infomercial channel means by far nobody is going to write about it; there's nothing to write about here. And even if two million people were consistently watching this network day in and out (which would earn N based on 'why on earth are two million Canadians watching an infomercial channel?', but be nearly all negative press), we don't care about viewership overall; just about overall notability. It just doesn't have it. Nate • (chatter) 03:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the only feasible merger target has been deleted, and the information is undoubtedly encyclopedic. Notability is marginal, but for this type of page (as opposed to a BLP like the other one) there is good reason to keep the standard as low as policy permits, for the benefit of readers. Modernponderer (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How are readers benefited by keeping minimally sourced articles about topics of no significant or enduring public interest? Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bearcat: Most of Wikipedia consists of obscure articles of "no significant or enduring public interest". That's not an inclusion criterion here. Modernponderer (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I didn't say it was. Conversely, reliably sourcing the topic over WP:GNG is an inclusion criterion here, and it's one this article is not meeting. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable independent sources able to,demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough RS to show notability. If there is a redirect/merge target I would support that. Lightburst (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2020 (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.