Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomerang (Spanish TV 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 redirect to Boomerang (TV network). The history remains under the redirect. if you'd like it to work on in draft space before taking it through AfC, just met me know. Star  Mississippi  00:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Boomerang (Spanish TV channel)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This doesn't appear to be independently notable of Boomerang (TV network). This article appears to be about a channel for Spain (see the only ref), rather than a more general Spanish-language channel. As such, I propose that this be redirected to Boomerang (TV network), where the channel can be covered in sufficient depth. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Is the discussion ended? Because if it is, I’m gonna remove the template from the wiki page.  Samueldester 1234  — Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United Kingdom.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per nom, not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 23:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect We need a practice of bundling details about country-specific feeds of channels that don't have much original programming or else we get unnecessary cruftballs like this. This could be one sentence in the parent article, if it had citations. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 23:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. I'd also like to note that this article has been redirected multiple times over the past month. ~  Matthewrb  Talk to me &middot;  Changes I've made 04:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree as I am improving the page. Nowadays, finding reliable sources related to the article is not easy to do. I can’t access to Mundoplus.tv’s articles on Boomerang Spain, I only have one link that got saved from the Wayback Machine. I wanted to restore it to it’s former glory, and NOT a “redirect”.  Samueldester 1234  — Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're looking to improve the article, do so as a Draft then get consensus to move it to the main space. Reverting four good-faith attempts to redirect this article as unsourced reads very strongly of WP:OWN and is the only reason we're wasting our time with this discussion now . ~  Matthewrb  Talk to me &middot;  Changes I've made 15:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the article should be redirected, WP:ATD-R is pretty clear that if the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again (emphasis added). The policy gives the article talk page and AfD as the alternative locations for where this can take place, but a bunch of people repeatedly redirecting a page isn't how the process is supposed to work. (A 2020 RfC indicates that most editors prefer to use AfD for this sort of thing over a proposed mergers-like process that takes place on the talk page.) In light of the relevant policy, I don't share an WP:OWN concern regarding 's behavior. However, I do think that the repeated blanks and redirects indicate that a lot of users did not see a reason for a separate article. The current sourcing, as far as I can see, is exclusively from one reliable publication. This would fail WP:GNG and certainly fail WP:NORG. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As to your concern Mhaek10, I understand but regarding to WP:OWN, I have faced this before. I have 2 articles that I have created and currently on draft, Cartoon Network HD+ and Nickelodeon HD+ as to be separate pages to CN and Nick India. The 2 pages have citations until the pages became a redirect page. Now the page is on draft. I have faith that a page that turn into a redirect page and became a page again and so on still have a potential to be restored once again.  Samueldester 1234  — Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have struck accusation of OWN, as it was a bit strong (and I wasn't aware of that policy). I'm sorry. However, I strongly encourage you to work on the article in the draft space and use the AFC if the article is under active improvements.  As someone with over 10,000 edits, I still do that myself, and it gives you time to improve the article without worrying about AFD. ~  Matthewrb  Talk to me &middot;  Changes I've made 00:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm popping in again to ask a question which I'm hoping you can answer and which I think would be a good guide for your research. Did the Spanish version of Boomerang have any specific programming or standalone notability from its other feeds? Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 02:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sammie Brie, From what I saw on a continuity from May 2011, It had some classic cartoons and some aquired shows at the time on its programming. Samueldester1234 (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally, these things have to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor/admin. Posting a request at WP:RFCLOSE might be worthwhile if you feel that there is particular urgency for this discussion to be closed. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2022 (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.