Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persian Toon


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Persian Toon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Seemingly non-notable TV channel; the sources provided do not establish notability, and I cannot find any further sources which would. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 09:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * keep important Persian kid channel.al (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any reliable sources which can demonstrate that it is important and notable? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What does "important and notable" mean? It says it is the first Persian channel for kids, it broadcasts at Hot Bird satellite and thus can be watched by hundreds of million people in Europe and Middle East, it showed almost all well-known cartoon movies of the last decade (Ice Age, Shrek, Madagascar, Despicable Me,...). But it is definitely not "important and notable" for e.g. Australian people who don't know Persian. --188.109.89.238 (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is as notable as you say it is (and I don't deny that it might be), there should be reliable sources to back that up. If you can provide sources - reviews, articles, mentions in books, etc - which are not directly linked to the subject (an link to the channels own website wouldn't count, for example), then that would establish notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I've added two sources, but they're both before-the-fact, and look like they're written based off a press release reposted on sources that might have trouble meeting WP:RS.  As a result, I can't argue in good faith that this meets WP:GNG. On the other hand, the basic info is no doubt verifiable, I don't have a strong feeling one way or another here.  --j⚛e deckertalk 19:02, 9 July 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.