Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClassicKidsTV.co.uk

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. --Coredesat 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ClassicKidsTV.co.uk

ClassicKidsTV.co.uk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No independent, reliable evidence of notability. The site is now a Wiki, therefor hurting reliability of the little information it has. I searched through several random pages and via Google, and can find nothing stating that edits have to be under the GFDL or a similar free license, and no images I found had any sort of licensing. Many pages contain copyvio full recreation of song lyrics. Forums have just over 400 users. Alexa rank 997,149. Also delete the template used to link various kids show articles to pages on the site, but don't forget to remove it from all pages it is used on. Drat (Talk) 04:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Edit I struck out the GFDL bit. They don't take text from Wikipedia, at least that I've noticed, so it isn't relevant.--Drat (Talk) 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is no content copied from Wikipedia that I know of, it links to Wikipedia does where Wiki has more/better information. The site is not open to public editing, so the reliability is sound. But I accept the notability argument, though I've never known anyone personally that supported the concept of removing entries for notability, fine for paper-based encyclopedias, irrelevent for massive web-based ones like Wikipedia. --Orbling 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The Alexa rank has been falling heavily since September when the site changed to a wiki as all the pages changed entirely and thus the page rankings went down dramatically, this will pick back up in time. Also, as the site is a MediaWiki it promotes the use of the technology. If the page is to go, I suggest keeping the template as it provides a neat way of doing the external links - there are plenty of other sites with external links with far more dubious content, including videos which that site doesn't do, removing the template will just result in the links being entered manually which is less tidy. Any copyright issues on the site could easily be covered as easily as the show logos are handled on Wikipedia. --Orbling 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Template nominations for deletion go on Templates for deletion, not here. Kimchi.sg 05:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails notability/verifiability requirements due to lack of external reliable sources. Demiurge 11:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Sauce or delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no third party coverage as required by WP:WEB. Sandstein 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' per nom. WMMartin 18:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tawker 07:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Demiurge. --Dhartung | Talk 21:33, 1 December 2006 (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.