Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maleflixxx Television

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 Keep. Davewild (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maleflixxx Television

Maleflixxx Television (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was originally deleted as part of a group AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. DRV determined that the group listing was improper; therefore, this article is relisted individually. weak delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: There's no reason at all to delete. It provides enough information on the article, it's notable, it provides references from many sources all of which are independent and reliable, there is no reason to delete. MusiMax (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails N, zero reliable sources found. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 15:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 15:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is verifiable against WP:RS's provided. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sources look good enough to me for a stub. It will improve eventually. Mangojuicetalk 18:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteWeak Delete There's no doubt this is an existing TV channel, but my concern is with notability. digitalspy.co.uk, gay.com and gaywired.com posted about the launch of the channel in 2004 - most of it reading like a press release. That's not really what I understand as notability by independent sources. --Minimaki (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Here are a couple more sources: Viacom going up against them: [1] and AVN calling them as a leader in the gay VOD market with international reach [2]. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The variety.com article does mention it, and AVN has an article about it - which does weaken my concerns - changed vote above accordingly. Still a delete for now, as I'm not sure how much an article on AVN proves. --Minimaki 14:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
None of those are press releases, all of them are independent reliable sources. If you think those are press releases then you obviously don't understand the difference between the two. And if that is the bases of your argument, then your argument should be rendered void. MusiMax (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess I was a bit unclear, and you overlooked the word like when I said like press releases. In any case, to clarify, no, I did not think they are press releases - just that they read similar. From what I remember they all were from a day after the launch and did not contain anything besides information taken from the press release, which is not surprising as there was of course not much more info available yet. And very likely, those sites report the launch of all those channels, so it didn't convince me as being notable. --Minimaki 14:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But they don't even read like a press release either, yes they may take their info from a press release and then create a news article from that, but that's just how it works, everyone does it, they have to get their facts and info from somewhere and then create a news article using that info. And they also don't create an article on every channel either, they pick and choose what they think is important and what their readers would like to know about. MusiMax 17:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The television station is notable enough, and is verifiable through reliable sources. RFerreira 07:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Cable channel with national distribution = notable. Keep. Bearcat 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bearcat. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Bearcat 23:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bearcat. GJ 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Have to agree with Bearcat on this one. It's a national cable channel. It's inherently notable. Skeezix1000 13:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Bearcat. Jeffpw 11:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bearcat as inherently notable. Also per Musimax, Mangojuice, and the other keep rationale as notable with sources. — Becksguy 15:32, 4 December 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.