Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go! Kids


 * 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 merge to 9Go!. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Go! Kids

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence this is a "part-time television channel" and appears to be simply branding of a children's television programming block, no references apart from a press release from the channel's parent company. Suggest merging some content to 9Go! but a kid's block with no secondary sources doesn't need its own article. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to 9Go! as all the content was here prior to this edit to this edit . There is no need for a separate article as this is a non-notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge back to where it was. Unless there is some major new and extra content coming very soon for this separate article, there does not seem to be any reason to split it off.  Aoziwe (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Just some points for thought: ABC Kids (Australia) has its own page... and in advertising the new Hi-5, they have been saying it will air on "Go! Kids" not on "9Go!"... I could definitely add some secondary sources here for a "history" section. SatDis (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference is that ABC Kids and ABC2 are seperate entities sharing a channel space, where as Go! Kids is just branding of its kids block and not a seperate channel identity. Additionally, ABC Kids has a relatively long history of existance, and thus has more sourced content which warrants a standalone article. Go! Kids does not, and there does not yet appear any reason why Go Kids needs to be seperated from 9Go!. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid defence alone. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree - just thought I'd suggest some alternate opinions. SatDis (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This deletion is useless. As SatDis has said before, ABC Kids has it's own page because it has an long history and in advertising the new Hi-5, they seem to be saying that it will be airing on Go! Kids and not 9Go!. Also, Nine Entertainment Co. have confirmed that this is the branding for kids shows on 9Go!, and I created this page after hearing the announcement on MediaSpy. Although they use the 9Go! watermark instead of it's own watermark, let's keep this page and not delete it. Aaron&#39;s The Best (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC). This is an official reply.
 * Update on my reply - Go! Kids DOES have their own, separate watermark. I was flicking through the TV channel yesterday and saw that Go! Kids does have a separate watermark from 9Go! So this page should be on keep for ultimately! Thanks. Aaron&#39;s The Best (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC). This is another official reply.
 * Having a watermark does not establish a reason for a children's branding block to have its own seperate article. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Aaron's The Best is the creator of the article and also previous removed the AFD template. Ajf773 (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge Per the various reasons given by the other merge proponents. Safiel (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge, most of the content is just a long list of programs not original to Go! Kids. What's left is better covered in the main article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  10:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to 9Go!. Lack sufficient coverage for its own article. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2016 (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.