Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colby's Clubhouse (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colby's Clubhouse

Delete: article is a simply a voluminous set of WP:PLOT summaries, plus a smaller amount of WP:OR. The article currently cites no sources, and {{find}} turns up nothing that would indicate notability. As WP:FICTION has yet to be ratified, WP:GNG is the controlling guideline, and requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As the article is currently completely unsourced, WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" is also applicable. WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:LOSE & WP:IKNOWIT arguments (such as were made in the first AfD) are never relevant. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: in addition to the 'Arguments to avoid' listed above as given in the previous AfD, I would like to draw commentors attention to WP:INHERIT, WP:ONLYGUIDELINE & WP:NOTAGAIN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further Addendum: I would note that Trinity Broadcasting Network is not a "major network" (contrast List of United States over-the-air television networks#Major English-language networks) and that WP:OUTCOMES#Media is therefore not relevant. In any case, the latter refers to WP:NME for "further information", which states:

Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network — either national or regional in scope — of radio or television stations, or on a single cable television network with a national or regional audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market.
In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program can be notable enough for inclusion if it played a role in exposing a political scandal that resulted in the impeachment of the city's mayor — and a national television program can be non-notable if it got cancelled too quickly to have garnered any real media coverage.

One therefore cannot use WP:OUTCOMES#Media to circumvent this topics's lack of significant sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to this dismissal, WP:OUTCOMES#Media most definitely applies when it states quite simply, and sweetly ,and quite clearly... and not just "generally"...

WP:OUTCOMES#Media: Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are notable.

Point of fact: TBN is indeed a major broadcast network, and its 23 million viewers in nearly 22% of American households reached should not lightly be so easliy dismissed. The List of United States over-the-air television networks#Religious shows, even though segregated by format, that it is a major station. No one said it was THE major station (though it is the absolute Top Dog for Christian broadcasting), only that it is major. Period. Unless the nom can find some guideline or policy that says a station cannot be major if it is Christian broadcasting, or it cannot be major if it "only" has 23,300,500 viewers. And referring to proper use of guideline as "circumvention"? Goodness. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Points of fact:

That "TBN is indeed a major broadcast network" is not a "fact" but a conclusion, and a highly doubtful one (despite MichaelQSchmidt's huffing and puffing that "it is major. Period.") as I will demonstrate below.
The only relevant "fact" in the above claim is that it reaches 22% of US households. As List of United States over-the-air television networks#Major English-language networks shows 7 "major" networks having coverage of 96-99% of households, this puts TBN at less than a quarter of their size in terms of coverage,. This large difference is more than enough reason to question TBN's inclusion as a "major broadcast network". Further, TBN's coverage is smaller than six "Specialty and digital terrestrial television networks".

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact:

My "conclusion" was based upon the very same facts you yourself pointed to... that wiki-editor-generated and undoubtedly reliable-and-always-quoted-by-mainstream-media "list of television stations". Your dismissiveness of Trinity Broadcast Network, the largest Christian Broadcast network, because it "only" reaches 22% of US housholds while serving over 23 million viewers seems a bit of a stretch. I can see you are of strong opinion that Christian Stations cannot be notable or major. Your "demonstration" of its insignificance, despite the numbers to the contrary, is more the huffing and puffing you claim of me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Points of fallacy:

"I can see you are of strong opinion that Christian Stations cannot be notable or major." Thank you for putting words in my mouth, that in no way resemble anything I have said, in gross violation of WP:AGF & WP:TALK. I had neither brought up the fact that TBN is Christian, nor in any way suggested that it be held to a different standard than other networks because of this. Your behaviour is (in the words of WP:TALK) "unacceptable". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to contend that the largest Christian broadcast network is not major, in spite or because of the wiki-list you yourself provided, then the lack of WP:AGF is yours not mine. Thank you. And further, as you seem to attribute a comment to me that I did not make, wondering if Christian stations are being held to a different standard was made by a different editor in asking a question of yet another about his own comment diff. Accusing me of originally posing that question is what is unacceptable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merely contend that "the largest Christian broadcast network" is not automatically "major", any more than any other 'speciality' network is automatically so. Thank you for misrepresenting me yet again. The "wiki-list [I my]self provided" lists only 7 explicitly "major" networks, that are (as I have previously mentioned) far larger than TBN, and a large number of smaller networks. Inclusion on this list, other than as an explicitly "major" network, should therefore not be taken as indication that a network is "major". I would further point out (i) that I did not "attribute a comment to [you] that [you] did not make, wondering if Christian stations are being held to a different standard" & (ii) that in fact your continual harping on about "the largest Christian broadcast network" could be considered to holding Christian stations to a different standard (are the 'largest cartoon network', 'largest music network' and/or 'largest nature/science network' likewise automatically "major"?). I will conclude by asking you to kindly cease and desist misrepresenting my comments -- such misrepresentations are held to be "unacceptable" by WP:TALK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per last solid keep in 2007. What was relevent from the last AfD is the closing admin's cogent conclusion: "consensus suggests that the Trinity Broadcasting Network is indeed notable (5 million households viewers per week is actually quite high)". He did point out that the article was in dire need of cleanup. Its a shame that it was not at the top of everybody's list of concerns for improvement, what with concerns for the more notable articles on consumer food products and such, but his conclusions are still valid. Since the basic conclusions stil apply, and since Wiki has no deadline for nor expectation of perection, the article is still a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would strongly suggest that MichaelQSchmidt read WP:AADD. The closing admin's conclusion that he quotes is WP:INHERITED and thus fatally flawed (in that even if TBN is notable does not mean that this program is). Neither the comments on the first AfD, the closing admin's comments nor MichaelQSchmidt's !vote addresses the sources available on this topic, thus they are neither "cogent", nor address the controlling notability guideline, nor whether sources exist to make the oft-proposed, but never-attempted, cleanup of this article even possible. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in strongly suggesting I should read WP:AADD, I will state that I have visited that page. It is an essay and not guideline nor policy. The recurring suggestion of elevating it to guideline status is again under discussion. The best guideline ever is common sense. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept good faith in the admin's conclusion that a network with 5 million households viewers per week is actually quite high, and strongly suggest that the nominator might assume the same, or otherwise provide evidences that those wishing deletion immediately protested what he now feels was a flawed closure. Since before this second AfD of the kept article, I was not aware of the article, nor of its AfD closure in 2007. Again, wiki has no deadline for improvement and recognizes that it is itself not perfect. Can the nom then show that editors not rushing to improve a kept article is itslf against policy or guideline? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether TBN is "a network with 5 million households viewers per week is actually quite high" is irrelevant as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so whether TBN is notable has no bearing on whether this show is.
It is likewise irrelevant whether "those wishing deletion immediately protested", as this is not a DRV review of that decision, but a new AfD. What is relevant is whether the closing admin's argument, which you use as the basis for your keep !vote, is a valid reason for retention. This argument's inclusion in WP:AADD would appear to indicate that it is not.
The issue is not "no deadline", but no sources -- none in the article, none apparently available (via {{find}}), no reliable ones mentioned in any of the pro-keep discussion in either AfD. 'No sources' is "against pollicy [(WP:V) and] guideline" (WP:GNG).

Question: why do you refuse to discuss this topic's lack of sourcing, when this is explicitly mentioned in my nomination, and explicitly brought up in my above comment? Do you honestly believe that the sourcing (actual and/or potential) for this article meets WP:GNG? If so, how? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That I accept good faith in an admin's previous closure is an perfect valid justification to vote keep, as it encourages other editors to review the previous discussions and make their own informed opinion. And yes, it is most specifically about no deadline for improvement, since sources are availabble. Nominating for deletion rather than adding them yourself seems contrary to WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, but no one has to add anything. After viewing the revert battle going on in the histories betwewen you and an anonymous IP... such events immediately preceding your making a second nomination for deletion... I decided it will be far easier to either improve or enlist help to improve, than argue about the merits of a Christian program broadcast on a Christian Network. I will not be dismissive of TBN, or their works, or thier viewers. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF does not require that you accept an argument when that argument has been rejected (by its inclusion in WP:AADD) by the community.
I performed my 'due diligence' as required under WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, through the {{find}} template as stated above. It found no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- a finding that the trivial-coverage, questionably-reliable and/or non-independent sources that you have uncovered does not rebut. Thank you for your failure to WP:AGF by claiming that I didn't do this. [Addendum, I have quoted these sources at WT:Articles for deletion/Colby's Clubhouse (2nd nomination)#Coverage of the topic in newly introduced sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC) ][reply]

Question: since you have failed to address this, I will put it to you directly -- do you think the closing admin's argument "consensus suggests that the Trinity Broadcasting Network is indeed notable (5 million households viewers per week is actually quite high)" is WP:INHERITED? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:AFTER I found and added a few sources and did some minor cleanup. The article still needs a rewrite or consoldation of the episide section. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sources added do not give "significant coverage" (generally only a partial sentence, or product-listings, on the topic), and the reliability and/or independence of some of them is questionable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize and understand the differences between sources offered per policy WP:V and those offered per guideline WP:RS. And as an aside, WP:FICTION is not and may never be a guideline, and all guidelines are subject to Policy and common sense. They are not LAW. The goal of any editor is to improve wiki and its unique strengths as an encyclopedia editable by anybody... not to make it a clone of Britanica, an encyclopedia edited by academics. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(i) I would point out that I never based any argument upon WP:FICTION (and in fact explicitly disavowed it as a basis), so your first point is strawman. (ii) Your second point is WP:ONLYGUIDELINE, and particularly weak as it includes no arguments for ignoring the guideline that have not already been rejected by their inclusion in WP:AADD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who first brought up WP:FICTION, not I. Please accept good faith in my keep vote and my own wish to improve the article. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I "brought up WP:FICTION" only to explicitly disavow it as unratified. You are misrepresenting me again. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to bring it up at all, as an unratified and contested essay/proposal-in-works has no relevance to this discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - did a quick and less than thorough google search, and saw nothing to indicate to me that the subject meets notability guidelines. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael. Sourced adequately to side on the side of keep. Ikip (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject clearly fails the notability guidelines. It's an evangalizing christian show, whose only sources are evangalizing publications. No notabilty established via reliable, independent sources. Let's not be advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising? Every page "advertises" its subject here... whether an article or a userpage. The idea is to be informative in increasing a reader's understanding of the subject, and per guideline Jclemens is correct in WP:OUTCOMES#Media. Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bali ultimate, could you please clarify your statement? It almost sounds like you mean that religious content is held to a different standard than non-religious content. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:OUTCOMES#Media TV shows which aired on a major network are notable by default. Jclemens (talk)
... And while this is regrettably not in a format that lents itself to citation Smile of a Child's TV schedule shows that it is still airing daily. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in agreement with Jclemens' observation regarding WP:OUTCOMES#Media and with Mr. Schmidt's vigorous defense of the article. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps if it was listed in a proper episode list format, it'd be more presentable. Anyway, I looked through the first nomination this article had, and don't see as how anything has changed. It has millions of viewers, and that clearly makes it notable, based on wp:common sense, which is vastly more important than the notability guidelines/suggestions at determining notability. Dream Focus 02:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons as last time. In fact, I'm just going to re-post my previous comment, as all of it still applies: "It's a Christian show for very very small kids, so it's hardly likely to have an online fan presence like The Simpsons or Star Trek (that said, there does appear to be at least one unofficial fan site for it). While I'm not sure I want to go on record as having said that "all TV shows are notable", it seems to me that a TV show that lasted 3 seasons and is STILL on air on the largest Christian network in the world is notable by any reasonable definition." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are all kinds of definitions of "major" when it comes to television networks (some sources only consider the top 4 networks major, excluding The CW; I'd hope we wouldn't start nominating CW shows for deletion because of this), but the relevant issues here are that is a network with nationwide coverage, and that there are independent reliable sources cited that give enough coverage to support the facts in this article. This is also the type of show that is far more likely to be covered in offline printed sources than in sources that are available online. DHowell (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable. But the plot summaries and episode list need to be severely trimmed. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and in agreement. I have just copied the episode list and loooong plot summaries to the article talk page for further discussion and set a simplified episode list in place diff. There were concerns of this dicussed in 2007. User:WAVY 10 Fan then copied the informations to a seperate list article in August 2007 diff and it was replaced with a lengthy season cast list. When the sepertae list was prodded by an anonymous IP in October 07 for being unsourced diff, the editor put the list back in the main article diff, and the seperate list was deleted diff. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While not required, and per Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion, I will be making a courtesy notification the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that has been nominated for deletion. This is not canvassing, as it will be neutral in tone and will be sent to any non-anonymous IP that contributed. This will enable those with related knowledge to participate in this debate, for better or worse. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral notifications made. Did not notify anonymous Ip's nor SPA accounts. Notifications were sent only to editors who made 2 or more edits, even if the edits involved an earlier prodding. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TBN is sufficiently important that its major continuing shows are notable. I strongly deprecate in advance any attempt to make articles on their episodes without prior consensus. DGG (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it isn't on a secular kid's network doesn't mean the program has no notability to speak of. It aired for several seasons on one of the largest religious networks around and is still aired on SoaC. Nate • (chatter) 09:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.