Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health & Lifestyle 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   no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Health & Lifestyle Channel
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a television channel that appears to fail WP:N as I can't find any in-depth discussion of the channel from reliable sources. For a TV channel, it has hardly been mentioned at all in my google news searches:. The article as written contains a lot of peacock wording that leads me to believe this is an attempt at promotion.  Them From  Space  19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - As far as I can figure, this is an exclusively Chinese TV station out of Hong Kong, so it's little wonder why there isn't much in an English google search. Searching for this in Chinese, I get several thousand results, though I don't understand any Chinese, so I have no idea how relevant this is.  Grandmartin11 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and request cleanup and sourcing from Chinese speaking/reading Wikipedians. Considering several thousand hits and the size of the market demographic in China, its a pretty safe bet that a few might source notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I've just done a bit of coyedit to bring format into line with wiki standards, removing pecock and advert as per WP:AFTER.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This still fails WP:N. If reliable sources independant of the subject cannot be found, the article should be deleted. There still only appears to be trivial coverage of this subject. I don't know if you can read Chinese or not, but if you can't than don't source information to articles in Chinese.  Them From  Space  01:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I simply pointed out that sources were available and suggested input from Chinese Wikipedians. There is a Chinese language source cited in the article, but it was not placed by me. It was put there by Excirial in March of 2008 diff and then converted by a bot in June 2008 diff. As for Chinese sources, if I WERE to add any, I would follow proper guideline and provide a translation of any cited text as per non-English sources and citing sources in different languages, as I am not a bot.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading this diff correctly, you sourced this website three times within the article. Although you just claimed not to, the diff says otherwise.  Them From  Space  20:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just used what had been present for a year in doing the cleanup. I added no non-english sources, just as I wrote above... simply used in WP:AGF what was already there long before my arrival. Thank you though for looking so thouroughly at the histories.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2009 (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.