Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faze TV (TV channel)

: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 (NAC) RMHED. 23:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

=[[Faze TV (TV channel)]]=

:{{la|Faze TV (TV channel)}} ([{{fullurl:Faze TV (TV channel)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faze TV (TV channel)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This article is about a proposed television channel that never launched and at this present time, has no plans on launching anymore. Television channel articles should only be about channels that are on the air or have been at one time on the air. This channel in question, has neither. There is also no references or citations. musimax. (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:: comment Request more reffrences before I make a decision. AltecCrog (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:::We've already looked and found bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep I had no trouble finding references to support the claim that the channel would be the first aimed at gay men in the UK, and have added additional material to describe the effort and its collapse, backed by appropriate references. I'll add a few more to get it to qualify for DYK, but this is a decent start. Alansohn (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

::But the thing is that the channel never actually launched. If it had gone to air, then I think it would be notable enough to keep. But simply a planned channel, that never launched, I don't think that's notable enough. musimax. (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

:::The Wikipedia notability standard is not that something exists. The question is if the media has taken notice. Per WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The article makes an explicit claim of notability, that does appear to satisfy these criteria by being included in independent reliable sources. That it never made it on the air is not an impediment to notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

:Keep per Alansohn. Also, the channel's potential uniqueness and the reasons surrounding its failure are notable, encyclopedic and of potential historical interest. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep per adam's comment.Smallman12q (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as article is now properly sourced, appears to cross the notability threshold. Remaining issues with this article are a matter for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

: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.