Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Room HD

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 redirect to Voom HD Networks. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Family Room HD

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability, lacks signification references 0pen$0urce (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Lacks notability and references.--0pen$0urce (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Voom HD Networks and summarize network in one line in that article. Long defunct, but a network airing content. Outright deletion should not be needed here. Also, nominator's duplicate vote has been struck as the rationale is counted as their delete vote. Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe see a referenced summary, maybe. Again clearly lacks notability and references.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done WP:BEFORE then? With the entire AMC Networks/Dish Network dispute over the last few months/years, there are definitely sources for Voom's channels and services if you look at the links for Google services above. Nate • (chatter) 05:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AH yeah how about focus on content so YES, I did a WP:BEFORE. Not notable to have it's own article. Just like Kung FU HD which is in the same realm and a consensus was found deleted. PLEASE focus on content. Being mentioned in passing because of a lawsuit doesn't count as NOTABILITY. So example VOOM network is in a lawsuit with DISH and a list of defunct, short lived, obscure channels that voom carried is mentioned in article. Doesn't meet the significant coverage criteria. Not notable to have it's own page.--0pen$0urce (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As stated, lacks Signification coverage. Lack reliable sources, Lacks verifiable sources. In summary not Notable.--0pen$0urce (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect/Merge. The issue has been discussed various times with the other channels linked at Voom_HD_Networks#Channels that have been AfD'd or PROD'd due to lack of notability. If necessary, a redirect with inclusion of sources in the main article could work, but the only type of information I see in the article (and in news archives) is programs that were to be shown on the channel, which I do not agree is notable. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will concur on this. A redirect may be in order, if only to appease those who would snowball the issue.--0pen$0urce (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The first linear Family-themed channel in high definition is notable. It was a network that aired content and had significant programming mentions in media outlets. Why the sudden rush to delete the Voom Channels after the recent dispute between AMC Netwworks/Cablevsion and Dish Network was settled? BTW: Kung Fu HD should be re-instated and the other Voom Channels should not be deleted. Timing seems questionable as is the attempt to delete history and possible future references, etc.. LONGEDDY (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOW really, KUNG FU HD which a consensus was found to delete. Please read up on NOTABILITY. Also you're making insinuations and your intentions here raise questions.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the Voom channels that had there own page are gone, 3 remain because of snowll's chance efforts to save by a single very new editor who has been advised about edit waring, NPOV, and advocacy. merge.--0pen$0urce (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a debate?--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2012 (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.