Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animania 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 02:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Animania HD[edit]

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

Lacks notability and references 0pen$0urce (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 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. Nate • (chatter) 03:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect for an article that has never been referenced and is not notable, nah. Delete and put referenced summary, key word referenced on the VOOM page.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nom for Family Room HD, please do WP:BEFORE. A national cable channel shouldn't be hard to reference, especially with the source links above and the unique name of the channel, and I should be able to find some in the days before close. Nate • (chatter) 05:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources may be an issue. I hold my ground. An obscure, defunct tv channel doesn't constitute needing it's own article. You seem to insinuate I didn't do a WP:BEFORE, I did, adn it lacks notability --0pen$0urce (talk) 07:57, 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. This article is in the same shape. If it happens to be more notable than the others, a redirect with inclusion of the source in the main article could work. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:59, 4 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 00:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still think delete, someone swooped in and snowball saved the article from deletion not by editing or improving, just removing the deletion nomination.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Under construction while Adding info that is clearly available and notable related to Children's programming in Hi Definition. More to be added. I welcome research and contributions from Wiki editors as opposed to deletion requests. The info is out there. Will work to improve. Don't believe other articles on indivudual VOOM Channels should have been deleted. Channel has notability as the first hi def Animated children's channel in the U.S.. LONGEDDY (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions, (key word opinions) appreciated. Consensus was found on those other articles to delete. The first HD animated children's = notability? Have to disagree. Might want to read up on notability guidelines.

Merge or Delete. Seems to be where the consensus is heading. Only see one discussion to outright keep the article, several editors for merge to VOOM. --0pen$0urce (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Meets General Notability Guidelines with verifiable third party sources cited on first high definition Animated Channel (eg. Animation Magazine)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still going with Merge at best, likely delete. Have concerns of wp:snowball and wp:advocacy may be behind attempts to save articles related to Voom and it's defunct channels.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:31, 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.