Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.

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 all. Neil ☎ 11:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Channel Zero Inc.

Channel Zero Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is about a Canadian broadcasting company, which I think is not notable according to WP:CORP. The article has previously been tagged for missing references and for not establishing notability, but both templates were removed by an IP without comment, so bringing it here. A google news search shows some hits, but it looks like rather trivial mentions - the best I found is this press release, but I'm not sure that can be seen as an independent reliable source. Minimaki 10:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Good article. 203.220.107.23 11:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP and apparent scarcity of reliable sources. Note that the above comment is incorrect, this is not a good article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Starblind. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable. The company website is little more than flash-fluff. Bombycil 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: this article is a notable article. There is no reason why this article should be deleted. It gives info on the company which is notable, just like CTVglobemedia is. So what if their website is "fluff", that is no reason. MusiMax 17:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have time right now to investigate further, but this company owns 5 cable channels that also have articles; if some of them are notable, then the company probably is by extension. On the other hand, maybe this just means there needs to be 5 more articles deleted:
  • Movieola
  • Silver Screen Classics
  • AOV Adult Movie Channel
  • XXX Action Clips Channel
  • Maleflixxx Television

In any event, neither this article nor the five above cite any references that establish notability per the Notability Guidelines' requirements. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

On further checking, I found a brief Canadian Broadcasting Corporation mention which I added to the article, but it does not cover Channel Zero sufficiently to satisfy the notability guideline. I searched Google News Archive for Movieola and found sufficient coverage to establish its' notability. I did not find anything else for Silver Screen or Channel Zero -- maybe someone else can look. I suspect both may be notable, but I sure can't find anything to prove it which is what this AfD requires. I did not have time to look at the three adult channels' notability. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Enough references have been added to the article to support its notability and links to Channel Zero's properties have been added to support the fact that it owns notable properties. MusiMax 16:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment There are four references given right now:

• [1] rather trivial mention, one of the channels listed is run by them
• [2] not sure how independent channelcanada.com is, and how notable a channel application is
• [3] apparently a press release and not independent
• [4] rather trivial mention

So I'm not really convinced they prove notability. --Minimaki 12:28, 12 November 2007 (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.