Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Screen Classics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 I don't buy that every channel is notable - there has to be some reliable sourcing and it needs to be more than it exists. I couldn't verify either source listed without logging in and this [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.] recent AFD appears relevant. Spartaz Humbug! 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
- This deletion was overturned to no consensus at deletion review: [1]. Splash - tk 00:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silver Screen Classics[edit]
- Silver Screen Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
I could not find a specific guideline about the notability of TV channels, but unless every TV channel automatically gets an article, there needs to be more than an announcement on broadcastermagazine.com about it. I couldn't find anything in google news which hints at this channel being notable, so I think it should be deleted. Minimaki (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is ridiculous, there's no reason whatsoever why this article should be deleted. This article has the right to be kept just like any other similar television channel article. Just because it is owned by a smaller company doesn't mean it is not notable. This article clearly explains what the channel is about and what it airs, it is widely available across Canada on most major cable companies systems, and there are references given by two separate companys discussing the channel. And just because it isn't mentioned within google news doesn't mean it's not notable, google doesn't pick up every web page out there. MusiMax (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep...but.... Um, google generally picks up every article out there. And then some. I returned 1.8 million. But besides that, per WP:OUTCOMES, I'm weak about this one. The guidelines don't specifically address cable channels, but precedent seems to be to keep these. For example, Turner Classic Movies, and Turner Classic Movies (UK), not that I'm trying to evoke an other stuff exists argument. The station has been around for 4+ years, I suppose that can be accounted for as far as notability? Keeper | 76 21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mini and Max mean, I gather, to refer to returns from Google News, which, as a news aggregator, serves a function (and operates in a fashion) a bit different from that of the traditional Google search engine (that is not, to be sure, to suggest that one should draw any grand conclusions about the notability of this topic from the quantity of its G-news hits, but, instead, only to address a bit of confusion). Joe 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I see no reason to delete it. It's a TV channel, what's non-notable about that? Ben W Bell talk 21:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are talking about notability as described on the WP:N page. Merely being a TV channel is not enough, as should also get clear from WP:NOT. --Minimaki (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about a tv channel which there are already many many articles about tv channels that already exist, the article clearly explains what the channel is with a very objective view, there is no bias, it gives references from reliable and independent sources, the channel has been around for 4+ years, it's available across the country on most major cable systems. As you can see it is notable and there is no reason to delete it. MusiMax (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but WP:OTHERSTUFF - and what the article is missing currently is any hints why it is notable - I have not yet seen reliable and independent sources suggesting that. Basically, what I'm wondering is, how can the article get longer than its current 2 lines? What are the notable things one could possibly add to it? --Minimaki (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has reliable and independent sources... that's one of the reasons why it's notable... the fact that independent companies take the time to write an article about it makes it notable, they don't have to but they choose to because they find it notable themselves. What makes CMT Pure Country any more notable then this channel, it doesn't have any sources and it is about the same length? It's not hurting anyone to have this article stay, it's only helping, allowing readers to learn about this existing channel. If you take it away, then that's one less way for readers to learn about it, not to mention all the other web sites out there that take their info from Wikipedia. MusiMax (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, WP doesn't necessarily try to list every possible useful information - there's much better places in the net to have a list of each and every TV channel - and not deleting them may be harmful in more subtle ways. We also don't have an article on each business or each athlete or each character in each TV show... So to justify this article, in my opinion there needs to be sources on more than merely being yet another TV channel showing old movies. --Minimaki (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has reliable and independent sources... that's one of the reasons why it's notable... the fact that independent companies take the time to write an article about it makes it notable, they don't have to but they choose to because they find it notable themselves. What makes CMT Pure Country any more notable then this channel, it doesn't have any sources and it is about the same length? It's not hurting anyone to have this article stay, it's only helping, allowing readers to learn about this existing channel. If you take it away, then that's one less way for readers to learn about it, not to mention all the other web sites out there that take their info from Wikipedia. MusiMax (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but WP:OTHERSTUFF - and what the article is missing currently is any hints why it is notable - I have not yet seen reliable and independent sources suggesting that. Basically, what I'm wondering is, how can the article get longer than its current 2 lines? What are the notable things one could possibly add to it? --Minimaki (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about a tv channel which there are already many many articles about tv channels that already exist, the article clearly explains what the channel is with a very objective view, there is no bias, it gives references from reliable and independent sources, the channel has been around for 4+ years, it's available across the country on most major cable systems. As you can see it is notable and there is no reason to delete it. MusiMax (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm convinced by the arguments to keep. • Lawrence Cohen 05:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable television channel. Nothing states that TV channels are inherently notable in any way, and this is no exception. WP:OUTCOMES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are neither policy nor guidelines - the existence of an article on one subject does not mean every other related subject has a "right" to an article. --Coredesat 05:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as no reliable cites exist that support notability. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 26 November 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.