Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsters HD


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Monsters HD

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks notability, lacks verifiable references 0pen$0urce (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

LONGEDDY (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC) I wrote some of the article but did not start the article or list of films. Added additional references per the request of 0pen$0urce. Reasons to keep. References are noted and are verifiable. Subjective opinions of the articles "lacking notability" is not objective. Films in Hi Def are relevant to consumers of Blu Ray and HDTV.WP:COMPANYWP:CORPWP:MOVIE
 * Comment. I've removed a big chunk of the article. First off, it wasn't neutrally written and we don't need a huge list of every movie ever shown on the channel. We don't do that for channels such as say, HBO or Cinemax and there's no reason to start here. Secondly, the sources weren't usable that were on the article. IMDb isn't usable as a RS and neither are blogs. I am, however, finding other sources out there so I'm optimistic about salvaging the page. But as far as "it's relevant" goes, that's not really a reason to keep.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't had luck with references another editor spammed the article with references and already the first one does not support it's inline citation. So looks like more reference cleanup.--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional: I'm having a really hard time with this one. I've found a ton of sources that talk about the channel getting yanked, but not many that actually talk about the channel itself. Most of what I'm finding are press releases and things that talk about various movies the channel was going to show or had acquired, but not much else. I'm leaning towards having this redirect to the main page for Voom, as there's not much that actually talks specifically about the channel and what I am finding out there mentions the channel briefly in relation to Voom as a whole. When they do mention it, that is.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again in the same boat and thus why I nominated for deletion. It's lack notability and reliable sources.--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are numerous articles on the channel itself if one looks in the right places and don't remove/undo reliable cited examples.  I have found that if you do a search for MONSTERSHD (no separation) - you will find other relevant and reliable sources on the channel.  In addition, numerous references were removed by the two previous editors that are seeking deletion for the article.  ( these were clearly relevant and RS).   BROADCASTING AND CABLE reference was removed AND is a reliable source for television research.  There seems to be a sudden effort to remove channel articles in light of a recent legal dispute between the companies involved in the article.  I have noticed Articles relating to a channel called KUNG FU HD was recently deleted by a "Novice" editor?  Unclear as to the timing of the request for deletion LONGEDDY (talk)LONGEDDY (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC) —  • contribs) 02:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Both references were checked, one is a blog, sorry blogs are typically not acceptable references. The other I could not find anything about the article, shouldn't have to search within a reference for what is being referenced. Please read the five pillars of Wikipedia that I provided on your new user page. This has nothing to do with lawsuit. Kung FU HD was deleted because lack of notability and references. YOu keep repeating subjectivity as an issue. May want to look in the mirror sir. Again reason for nomination ,lack of reliable quality references and lack of notability. An obscure, short lived, and now defunct channel is not notable enough to keep. So the article is blanketed with references, with footnotes that lack relevance. Again I will be checking all the references. In the meantime please review wikipedia citing sources, reliable sources policies, the guidance on blogs blogs as references, FYI only administrators can delete an article not a "Novice editor" I will be checking each and every reference that was recently added--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I see you have been blocked for the 3 reverts rule, don't just arbitrarily revert stuff you don not like. You're new and already you're getting off on the wrong footing here. Please see five pillars of wikipedia and also instead of commenting on a "Novice editor"  focus on content--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Lacks notability and support by the fact reliable, quality sources that cover the article are very hard to coem by. Sorry, but an obscure, short lived, and now defunct for several years channel doesn't seem worthy to have it's own article, especially given the lack of coverage.--0pen$0urce (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into Voom_HD_Networks. This channel/article seems to have slightly more notability than the other VOOM channels that have been discussed before and AfD'd or PROD'd. That being said, I do not think the notability is enough to warrant its own article, and seems to be WP:SNOW that it could grow into something more than a stub. I think including it on the VOOM page would suffice for inclusion of any notability. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP : The article was improved per the original editor's request for Improved Tags. Check it out. In addition, the reference from a blog that was cited should be an acceptable reference since it is coming from a noted comic book artist, published writer, lecturer and educator,Steven Bissette (this was noted on the blog- check his Wikipedia article, too if in doubt on who he is). Blogs are acceptable if coming from a reliable source.  It should not have been deleted and is quite significant and relevant to the network's history and promotional imagery. LONGEDDY (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have already indicated that your opinion is "keep", so I am striking your additional"STRONG KEEP". Repetition of "keep" or "delete" comments from one person can be confusing. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE and references from Reliable Sources (Horror Magazines and Websites) with Citations and Improved Article/Notability and Tags were added per the original request. Why the rush to delete? Deletion should not be an arbitrary, subjective decision made by an editor that claims the network was obscure and without notability. Monsters HD is notable as the first and longest running linear horror channel in the US.  It  received significat coverage from quality, reliable sources in media, has an existing Toy and DVD line, and is still owned by a major cable programmer, AMC Networks, after being put into limbo by an $2.4 billion lawsuit which was recently settled in October 2012. Again, why the rush to delete or merge? ""'KEEP""' LONGEDDY (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * AGAIN focus on content PLEASE. You keep making accusations of subjective edits. What are your intentions exactly? You're just dumping references, many repeated and irrelevant to the information your adding. I keep checking your inline citations and asTokyogirl79. Your conduct is of concern and I feel your contributions lack a neutral point of view, please review snowball, this appears exactly what is going on here. Also please don't just throw material into that article as a attempt to save it without referencing it.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * RELEVANT ARTICLE" on its own with FOCUSED CONTENT and IMPROVED, REFERENCED, RELIABLE and NOTABLE Sources on the subject.  The subject of the article is more than a tv channel - it exists as a brand with an existing ancillary Toy Line and DVD line. KEEP.  STILL RELEVANT AS A BRAND''' and question remains if channel will come back, in some form.LONGEDDY (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not seeing where this is a brand now. Up until you created your account that article only had 1 questionable reference, now it has 30 that all seem to repeat and not support the information. By the way may want to try making groups since several references that were recycled from previous versions.--0pen$0urce (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Longeddy, have you taken a look at WP:AFDFORMAT? Specifically, "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." Also, the bold text is getting distracting and should be used for individual opinions, or, if necessary, an additional "comment." Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kelly. Please forgive my distracting bold text.  Still learning while trying to improve the article. LONGEDDY (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Open$0urce, I took your recommendation and grouped the article into sections. Thanks.  I think it looks better. Please let me know what you think. On another note,   assume good faith. I don't understand what you mean by "questionable" references?  The publications and websites are legitimate and reliable.  In fact, I provided Wikilinks to Fangoria and RueMorgue (the leading genre magazines that referenced MONSTERS HD).  Can you be more specific?   I really would like to make the article the best I can but I am concerned that you don't believe or are not looking at the articles cited.LONGEDDY (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Improved citations, thanks to TokyoGirl79! I appreciate the suggestions as I try to learn Wikipedia while doing my best to improve the article. Open$0urce recommendation to group the article in sections was welcomed! Thanks!  I still want to know why the published references continue to be questioned though. Please let me know, if you have the time, why or what is needed.   I truly have made every effort to document and improve the article over the past couple of days.  I came to improve the article to add titles to a list that already existed and found the elimnation of said list and titles to be undone.  (I found it to be a valuable reference as a BluRay DVD collector. I haven't added back because I agree - the article needed improvement.  I think it has come a long way and will continue to provide information and construct as need be.  I hope you can remove from Articles for Deletion based on my WP:AGF efforts to improve the article.  Thank you for your consideraton, suggestions and, especially, continued  patience with this "newbie."  LONGEDDY (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 I still hold a stance or either delete or merge, also have concerns that one new editor who has made a rather large volume of edits pertaining to this article and discussions about it the degree a neutral point of view issue could be raised with the article as well as advocacy concerns.--0pen$0urce (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Speedy Keep" while improving Article which is still under construction.  Planning to add a section on other Horror cable TV networks in the U.S. and abroad, since others have their own article  - (eg. See the entry for DUSK fka SCREAM TV - which is no longer airing but does have its own article.  Just because a channel does not broadcast anymore does not mean it doesn't warrant its own article (See Z Channel).  With all the references and citations that are now listed.  Please check them out and WP:AGF.  There are more out there on the web and in other magazines and publications if you assume good faith.  Originally film titles of movies aired on the channel were added and then deleted because it wasn't done for HBO.  I haven't added back yet but I do know know that some channels listed on Wikipedia list films and programs.  Why can't they be entered here?   I totally agree, the article needed improvement.  Additional information was added and references from reliable sources were found. Again, I wonder why there is a quick desire to delete or merge this and other VOOM Channels (See Animania HD, Family Room HD, etc).  Again, I don't believe KUNG FU HD should have been deleted nor should the other VOOM Channels.  Each was unique and had their own distinct programming and identity. (just like Z Channel and SCREAM TV). LONGEDDY (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder why the concern to save the article all of a sudden and attempt to improve them all of a sudden after years. Why is one new editor making a rather large number of edits, as well as reverting other editors contributions. Kung FU HD was deleted per a consensus was found. Again notoriety is lacking bigtime. So is a Neutral point of view on these edits. Also consider wp:undue, this is a minority view on this subject. Multiple editors feel that list of programs is not needed, dispute resolution measures should be taken and a consensus reached.--0pen$0urce (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I see one editor vehemently defending and trying to save article. Somewhat aggressive editing tactics, to include reverts of other editors, and claiming references are reliable when multiple other editors who also work on other things besides one or two related pages have checked and challenged references. Not seeing a consensus to save, seems the discussion is leaning towards delete. Also insinuations are being made after being asked not to do such. This also leans on wp:undue as an opinion of one or a minority has little weight on wikipedia.--0pen$0urce (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Expanded and improved article with additional section to substantiate additional questons on "Slogan" WP:AGF. to reiterate (AGAIN) reliable sources on the subject. Will continue to expand. Would appreciate constructive additions/ improvements instead of threats of deletion and edit wars. The suggestion of adding sections to this article was a good one and continues to fuel the article. How about a section as I proposed on other entrants in the horror television category in the U.S. and abroad. I welcome it and all contributors and will try to expand on that concept myself to IMPROVE the article.LONGEDDY (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Expansion - ** Facts that are incessantly questioned and have (AGAIN) been substantiated & backed up within the article - leading to additional citations and efforts of one to improve, reference  and indeed try to save the article nominated for deletion.  Vehemently defended due to a rush to delete by the subjective opinion of a nominating editor.  Rue Morgue citations backed up by online citation and reference from Best-Horror-Movies.com.  {Please read the articles cited if anyone still has questions}  Read the links and read the article.  I stand by the facts and welcome all "Fangoria" "Rue Morgue" readers and others to chime in if it isn't true.  In addition, the Rue Morgue publication is available for purchase as the link suggests if one really needs to question and triple check.   WP:AGF The Rue Morgue cover story articles are even referenced in the link .  In addition, unclear of what the deletion nominating editor refers to as very non-mainstream publications.  HorrorHound is a leading horror genre publication and so is Video Watchdog. Both are notable and reputable.  Both have been around for quite some time and are available in Barnes and Noble nationwide and are still being published.. The Phantom of the Movies' Videoscope was also available in Barnes and Noble and Borders.  LONGEDDY (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Practice what you preach, you keep reiterating assume good faith, yet accuse others of "threats" and "edit wars". You're the one undoing and reverting others contributions, the very definition of edit war. You jumped right in and shouted "subject edits", couldn't the same claim be made on your edits? You insinuated the proposal for deletion has something to do with this AMC lawsuit, that's not assume good faith. Not all those sources; surprise surprise can be verified easily, such as the extensively used print ones. Already a I found 2 additional references that did not support. There are roughly 4 million other articles on wikipedia, as a new editor check em out as well as read up some more on the pillars and things. I still think this article lacks notoriety, and recent extensive edits now have raise point of view conerns, as well as too much undue weight may be given to a minority opinion.--0pen$0urce (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge My vote holds general the same as original, I am leaning more towards a merge with voom than outright delete. This has grown into a snowball. I don't like being accused of things and in the same breath have accuser practically scream WP:AGF, Hippocratic by definition. Since I am not here with an agenda, and I know many many other articles need attention, I shall move on. In closing further consideration should be taken that this article may now present a point of view issue and too much undue weight is being given to a minority opinion. --0pen$0urce (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Well, the wall of text above will no doubt help keep away additional opinions.  But it appears to be a historically notable cable television channel, meets WP:GNG..   Article still needs major paring, though.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  05:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep : Meets WP:GNG with additional information and citations from reliable sources.LONGEDDY (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've struck the vote- you can only vote once even though it's getting relisted. I know you're new here, so I want to state that I believe you re-voted in good faith, but you can only state "keep" once even if the discussion is relisted. It just means that the discussion is getting pulled over into another week.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok - My bad. Thank you for clarifying Tokyogirl79. You have been most helpful!LONGEDDY (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The current state meets notability, however the maintenance tags should stay until it is reviewed and a consensus is reached on neutrality and tone. Still concerned thatwp:advocacy is a concern with some edits and conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 November 2012 (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.