Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EqualiTV(Canada)


 * 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 This has not yet been able to reach even WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage by independent sources. While it is possible that it may demonstrate notability in the future, it has not reached that plateau yet. Unfortunately, the Google search engine also picks up misreadings of the word "equality", and most of the hits are "equalitv" rather than "EqualiTV". Mandsford 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

EqualiTV(Canada)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

pure spam, but speedy removed Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * KeepThere are enough results when google it.StevenFS (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:GOOGLEHITS notwithstanding, I cannot find significant coverage by reliable sources.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't appear to be on the air yet, so appears crystalish at present. Blueboy96 23:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe you meant to link WP:CBALL and not WP:CB--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Google does show enough hits and EqualiTV is the world’s first broadcast television channel by, for, and about all people with disabilities. For this it is also the world’s first cause-based television channel.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - the issue is not number of google hits but notability, which can only be established through independent reliable sources. While there is certainly a claim of notability by the nature of the TV network, I could not find independent sources to back it up. As mentioned by Blueboy, the network is not on air yet, so it appears to be too soon to create an article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * comment - The Canadian CRTC is a reliable source and the CRTC has approved to launch the EqualiTV, as the world's first TV channel in the world by, for, and about people with disabilities.


 * The above fact is enough to qualify under the following terms mentioned in the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball;
 * .........It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.
 * 1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place.


 * As it is a TV channel and, is the world's first for people with disabilities, its formation and activities might have been well covered at least in the Canadian TV Networks to make it Notable.StevenFS (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - obtaining approval from the CRTC does not fall under the criteria of notability, because anyone can apply for some room on the airwaves. It only proves existence (in a limited fashion), not notability; see footnote 5 of WP:N. You need independent coverage, such as this Globe & Mail article about an Obituaries TV channel. I couldn't find any similar coverage for EqualiTV.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - You have mentioned number of places on crystalish. To counter that only I have taken Canadian CRTC is a reliable source to establish the fact - "........It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."
 * But suddenly you have taken a "U" turn and talking about the Notability of the "Obituaries TV channel" which is still in the crystalish form.
 * To indicate the Notability, I have mentioned in my previous comment that EqualiTV is about a Televison Network, and other Canadian TV Channels might have broadcast enough to establish EqualiTV's Notability, but we don't have in black & white of what were aired. The world needs some more time to store what are aired and be available for references.StevenFS (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - my !vote has always been about notability, and the need for it to be verifiable. If the network was actually broadcasting right now, then it would almost automatically be notable like other TV channels. The crystal ball issue brought up by Blueboy is that, at the moment, EqualiTV is nothing more than a project with CRTC approval, and that there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to make it deserve an article as of now. Extensions of WP:CBALL are better expressed in WP:NFF (about future films) and WP:NALBUMS (for music): for a future subject to deserve its own article ahead of time, there has to be enough external sources to warrant it. There is zero media coverage, thus it fails WP:GNG. The example I gave of the Obituaries channel (which doesn't have or deserve its own Wiki article either) was the kind of coverage I was expecting for EqualiTV to possibly warrant a weak keep vote. For a proper keep on a future TV channel, you'd need coverage similar to Sun TV News Channel.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * comment - If you disagree with User:Blueboy96 on crystal ball issue, that is fine. But you have taken Sun TV News Channel for comparison,but still there are proposed TV Channels with fully fledged articles with poorly sourced or questionably sourced references, eg: Film GB, Houses of the Oireachtas Channel, Sofa Screen, Sofa Stars and TV CPLP.  I have mentioned in my previous comment that EqualiTV is about a Television Network, and other Canadian TV Channels might have broadcast enough to establish EqualiTV's Notability, but we don't have in black & white of what were aired. The world needs some more time to store what are aired and be available for references. And for the EqualitiTV, a Notability tag is enough(which is already in place) for the time being, and not the outright deletion. If the deletion is the only solution why we should have those Notability and similar tags?StevenFS (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to the Closing Admin
 * 137.122.49.102 is blocked for 2 weeks. There might be new intruders to influence the discussion on their behalf.StevenFS (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could we WP:INCUBATE this? Once the channel launches it'll be sure to garner notable coverage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This should have been a lay-down G11. EqualiTV will showcase what is happening, what is possible, what works, and what doesn’t. It champions a move not just from "me to we", but to everybody. It will take people with disabilities out of a dark corner of our society and into the spotlight in an immersive, inspirational way that fosters a sense of belonging. When the channel gets significant coverage in reliable sources, it can be recreated in neutral non-promotional language. Until then, this article has absolutely no place on wikipedia. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * comment I couldn't see any valid point on your comment above challenging Shawn in Montreal on WP:INCUBATE and rather a no-sense comment how the nominator of this page nominated Global Organization for People of Indian Origin.StevenFS (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with incubation is that we don't incubate promotional material. It's not allowed anywhere on the project. I don't think there's any text in this article that could form the basis of a proper article, so it needs to be started afresh. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be your POV that "I don't think there's any text in this article that could form the basis of a proper article, so it needs to be started afresh." We need others consideration as well.WP:INCUBATE will allow enough time and space for a wider community participation. StevenFS (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2011 (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.