Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network

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 of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network

POV rant. This is not an encyclopedia article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep providing it is rewritten as a short NPOV article. -- RHaworth 06:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten. Delete if not. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the rewrite looks fine. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It exists, but I see little evidence that it is notable (even if the article were NPOVd - which would leave a very small stub at present) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a bad article is not a reason to deletion, but rather to improve. Trollderella 17:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC) (see below)
  • Comment 1; I have added the POV tag, in the unlikely event this article passes the AfD without ending up in meta:Archive table. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment 2; I remind everyone that we have deleted companies posting their ads here. I do not see how this one is different. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Removed earlier vote to keep as page is a copyvio. While it is a legitimate tpic for an article, it shouldn't be a copyvio one. Delete. Keep following the excellent rewrite by user William Petri. Capitalistroadster 22:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy. Advertising of small business' is not encyclopediatic.. KillerChihuahua 17:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep after William Pietri's excellent rewrite. I'd still like to see more content in the article. KillerChihuahua 13:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if rewritten or turned into a stub. Delete otherwise. I was thinking it would be non-notable, but they were mentioned in the Manilla Times and repeatedly in their hometown paper, the Sun Star Davao, which appears to be an award-winning paper in a city of over one million. --William Pietri 18:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: that the local newspaper of the city only mentions this station five times is a sign of non-notability. The article of the Manila times mentions this station only at the end of the article, in passing. The sentence is particularly interesting:
    If you don’t believe religion is big business you don’t know how many millions of pesos evangelists and other “religious” leaders are spending to widen their communication network [1].
    I also think that even good newspapers sometimes mention things or people that are not notable. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmmm... Looking into this more, it looks like this is one head of a hydra, but a notable hydra. If we had an article on Apollo C. Quiboloy or the Kingdom of Jesus Christ the Name Above Every Name church, I'd support a merge. But as it is I'm not quite sure what to do. --William Pietri 20:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hopelessly PoV, probably nn vote withdrawn; article looks OK to me as rewritten (kudos to William Pietri for the rewrite); I have no opinion on whether notability criteria is met --FRS 04:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The list of TV channels alone is significant, just remove the POV stuff and clean it up. Bryan 04:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but needs major rewrite. *drew 23:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have rewritten the article entirely save the channel listings. I think it addresses the NPOV issues raised here. If anybody has further issues, please mention it. --William Pietri 02:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• After the rewrite, I withdraw my nomination. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment very good edit by William Pietri, who removed the spam and POV from the article. I praise him for doing the improvement, not just telling others to do so.
  Regarding notability, I am still somehow in doubt that this TV station notable enough for deserving an article here. William presented some evidence that the station is to some extent notable. I have withdrawn my delete vote, but I will not replace with a keep. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 13:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the article is now an acceptable one, and the citations establish limited but adequate notability as far as I'm concerned. — Haeleth Talk 15:06, 13 November 2005 (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.