Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AOV Adult Movie Channel


 * 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. While the consensus here appears to be to keep the article, the keep rationale isn't very strong. I suspect we will wind up back here again if some reliable sources aren't added soon.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

AOV Adult Movie Channel

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was originally deleted as part of a group AfD, Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. DRV determined that the group listing was improper; therefore, this article is relisted individually. Delete, given lack of reliable sources and notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: article has enough info, it's not biased, it's notable, no reason to delete. MusiMax (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails N, zero reliable sources found. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 15:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a nation-wide cable channel. How does that make it non-notable? (I also believe the company creates content and has substantial operations in Canada, but I can't exactly go tracking down that information right now.)  Torc2 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's a nation-wide TV channel - but for example each website is world-wide. For the channel to have an article, it should be notable enough to have independent, reliable sources talk about it - and what I have seen so far doesn't convince me. If the company is notable, maybe there can be an article about the company instead. --Minimaki (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think the article is fine enough to stay. There are thousands of article out there that doesn't have references and they stay. The article will improve with time. This is a nationwide television channel that has been around for a few years and is growing; I just don't think there it needs to be deleted. It's fine the way it is. MusiMax 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The availability of a cable channel and a website is not analogous. All websites by default are worldwide; it takes a conscious effort to make them not worldwide.  Notability is proven by the fact this channel is available nationwide.  The fact that media outlets include the channel's line-up in  their TV listings is sufficient independent confirmation of notability.Torc2 00:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions.   — A. B. (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cable channel with national distribution = notable. Keep. Bearcat 22:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bearcat. GJ 00:37, 3 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.