Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sparkk tv

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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkk tv

Sparkk tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is some sort of vanity article that should have been wiped out via COI months ago. It has no sources outside itself, and thus no assertion of notability or encyclopedic value. It's probably speediable under A7, but I'm never sure of the vagaries of CSD. MSJapan (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is about an actual company, a online TV Network that launched a few years ago. The sources are legitimate and other online TV Networks like Indieflix exist here on Wikipedia, which is also a webseries Network online. Sparkk TV is no different than any other company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.77.178 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC) — 70.187.77.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Well. A7 isn't all that vague, and there is a certain claim of importance made, so it would probably be turned down by most admins. It is a very poorly sourced article, and I don't see much of a claim of importance. Besides--and the IP editor misses the point--there is no secondary sourcing that proves this is notable via WP:GNG, or instance. Thus, yeah it's much different from many other companies, who are notable and have been written about and pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I see only a minor web outfit and some promotional verbiage, thus delete. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Look at the categories that have all other online TV Network companies that are probably just as small under Wikipedia categories for Internet Television & Video On Demand Services. That's not right to judge companies based on prestige. This entry belongs in both categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.28.134 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC) — 172.56.28.134 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • It's not "prestige"--it's coverage in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Why not create a new section for online media or video on demand and include smaller companies like Sparkk tv, Indieflix & other smaller companies found in the Internet Television & Video On demand categories. There are so many companies listed and they should all be included. If more information is needed about the companies, then please tell what is needed so it can be added. Online TV is a new genre and not everyone is a Netflix or Hulu. But it doesn't mean you don't generate the web traffic or aren't popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbctv (talk • contribs) — Vbctv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Only thing that matters is whether the subject is covered in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to find any substantial coverage in independent sources so WP:CORP and WP:NWEB are not met. SmartSE (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet relevant notability policy. Citobun (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have articles that could serve as refrences and show cause to keep the article. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.77.178 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To serve as references, they need to be reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Except I think the IP has no idea what that means, so let's break it down. Hwdmediashare is a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources. Any site talking about a TV show is not going to be sufficient coverage for the network it's on, so that's basically everything else except for the last two sources. Killthecablebill is nothing but an indiscriminate list of providers, so that's no good, and russellnauman is paid PR, so that's no good. As another aside, I went through the article, and discovered that the refs given as citations don't support what they're tied to, so I stripped them out. MSJapan (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A site that's over a decade old and still has no significant coverage in major reliable sources simply is not encyclopedicly notable enough. Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches clearly found nothing better at all, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 7 June 2016 (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.