Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network decay


 * 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 and move to Channel drift. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Network decay

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Made up term from TV Tropes. Not a legitimate phrase for the "phenomenon" and only source is TV Tropes (obviously non-RS) and some guy's personal blog ranting about it (and apparently coining the term). Not quite a hoax, but certainly neither legit nor notable. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I've heard this term a lot recently, what with the SyFy thing and all, so it probably deserves it's own article. Meeting WP:N requires sources, of course, so I'll look into digging some up (adding Resuce tag for the same purpose). Artw (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - notable concept, possible new phrase. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but... I think the term more commonly used with this phenomenon is Channel drift and the article should be relocated there if this is successful. There are definitely industry sources for the "channel drift" term, and this should run the full seven days in the hope that this article can be highly improved.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This has been a big hullabaloo lately with the Syfy thing, as noted above, which has defiantly garnered attention. I would be okay moving the concept to "Channel Drift", and posting a redirect, if people prefer that term, but the concept itself is certainly notable. Sim (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If its only real use has been in connection with the whole Sci Fi to SyFy, I really don't see how its actually a notable concept, more of a one-time term being coined purely for that event and, at best, a line or two mentioned in SyFy (which I believe is already there). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just SciFi! Cartoon Network, The History Channel, and Court TV are all mentioned as good (or bad) examples of this effect in action, as written in several sources currently presented. In fact, several of the current "Theme channels" on cable are being drastically recalibrated in this way (sometimes with ... interesting results). With Hulu, etc. demonstrating what the markets are actually watching on a case-by-case basis, media overall is being rethought, and this is being attested to by several reputable sources, (LA times, etc.) which gives it notability. Sim (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not find anything that makes this notable. MS   (Talk | Contributions)  21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep and move to channel drift. Per notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Channel drift per the above comments; I think the TV 101 source is enough to establish notability. -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:05, 21 July 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.