Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Nickelodeon

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Nickelodeon[edit]

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

The "History" section on the main Nickelodeon article does not summarize any of the network's history beyond the early '80s, and the contents of the separate history page are much shorter than the "History" sections on comparable articles like CBS. Doesn't warrant its own page. OpenYourEyes2 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Main article is already overly long as it is, so merging this back in would make that article overly weighty. With 37 refs this is a WP:SOFIXIT case of improving the later parts from 'fanboy' tone, not outright deletion. Nate • (chatter) 21:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable network, this is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. South Nashua (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There was a recent discussion by editors of Nickelodeon about this issue, see: Talk:Nickelodeon#Merge history article into this one. Merge discussion should probably start there. Delete without merge is obviously not appropriate. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course! This company is a major television network (once that I watched as a child). With hundreds of shows released, an article covering the company's history is useful. I don't think the fact that the Nickelodeon article currently covers the history from the 1980s onward is a good reason to delete it. On the contary, it should be expanded instead. One citation that might be used to expand the article is The History of Nickolodeon timeline, found at the following url: https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/the-history-of-nickelodeon. Bmbaker88 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The history section of the main article certainly does need work to better summarize this content, but folding it back into the already-pretty-long main article doesn't seem like the right move. There looks to be enough by way of sources and content to justify a stand-alone history article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above 'keep' comments, notable network, issue of main Nickelodeon article being fairly long. Merging them is an option but would make Nickelodeon nearly 100k bytes and add 5 more sections to the 10 (and 23 sub-sections of varying levels) already existing. If it isn't long enough already, that would be pushing it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2017 (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.