Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KTV Ltd.

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 and no indication of further input Star Mississippi 14:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTV Ltd.[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)

Not notable and lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Largely unencyclopedic content including channel listings, "competitors" and the cost per month. PROD removed on the basis of sources on the Spanish Wikipedia that appear to be solely about the hacking of various Falkland Islands websites nearly 10 years ago. AusLondonder (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, United Kingdom, and Argentina. AusLondonder (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the two refs I added before this nomination. They were from the Spanish Wikipedia. Neither mentions hacking so I’m confused. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree article needs pruning and improvement. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the sources at the Spanish Wikipedia mention the website hacking incident. With regards to the sources you added, one appears to be primarily about Falkland Islands Television Limited, not KTV. It appears to be a trivial source per WP:ORGTRIV (coverage "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" is considered trivial). The other source is an interview with someone from the company, considered a primary source. AusLondonder (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it serves the needs of various communities which and is an important source or information to them. Article does need improving though. Karl Twist (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guess we may as well get rid of notability requirements then. All information could potentially be useful to someone. WP:USEFUL. AusLondonder (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please offer opinions based in source analysis and policy, not your opinion of the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2024 (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.