Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polygamy: What Love Is This?


 * 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   redirect to KTMW. In the future, please remember that redirecting a page that has an open AfD is a no-no. The redirecting is done as part of the closing; redirecting first is both blanking and removal of the AfD tag from an article at AfD, and is, therefore, against deletion policy. The Bushranger One ping only 06:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Polygamy: What Love Is This?

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

For more than 3 years, this article has been unable to demonstrate evidence of notability, has been unable to meet verifiability and reliable sources requirements. Reference 1 is Self-published. Reference 3&4 are not directly related to the show, nor is it mentioned, but the person and Ministry running it. Only Reference 2 has anything to do with the show itself, and it is only WP:ROUTINE local coverage.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the article creator Eli Macs has made only 19 edit since the pages creation. A full 75% of which were on the article itself, adding links to the article on other pages, and adding links to the "Ministry running it".  I would suspect this article is a Self-promotion.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete . Merge and redirect. I did a search on the show and there's just not enough sources out there that are reliable, independent, and show a depth of coverage. The sources in the article that aren't primary tend to discuss the ministry more than the show and even then there aren't enough sources to show notability for the ministry. (I checked to see if an alternative would be to create an article for the ministry.) Their aims might be honorable, helping women escape from polygamist households that are abusive, but they just aren't notable enough for an article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge verifiable content to KTMW per WP:ATD. I agree it doesn't appear notable; I do not agree that deletion is the appropriate policy-based outcome. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to merge. Redirects are cheap and some mention of this on the station's programming section wouldn't be a terrible idea. I'm ashamed that I didn't even think of that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with at merge. As Tokyogirl79 says "Redirects are cheap"--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the information that is on Polygamy: What Love Is This? to KTMW. It would be appropriate on KTMW#Original Programming in any case.  So this page can be "Redirected" at any time, if that is the consensus.  I have no objection.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since two of us don't mind and you (the nom) endorse this option, all that we need is an admin to close this so we can redirect the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this outcome, but it does seem to be a case where people resort to merging as polite alternative to deletion. ARTEST4ECHO, I appreciate the work you did to KTMW, but look at it now—why does "Polygamy" merit this sort of detail that the others shows don't have? It seems likely to be removed at some point. Deletion is appropriate if a line of mention on KTMW is sufficient; merging is appropriate if "Polygamy" deserves more coverage but not a standalone article. We can agree to disagree if you believe the latter. For now, it looks like we're just feeding the WP:SPA. Closing administrator, please don't let my editorializing get in the way of an expeditious outcome. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The solution to imbalance is to bring the other stuff up to the same level of sourcing, IMHO. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BDD, I am fine ether way. My issue has always been that the article fails notability, verifiability and  reliable sources requirements.  While I don't mind a merge, I don't mind an outright deletion, ether.  I have just never seen a justification for having an article on this program, while others, both on the same station and hundreds of other station, don't have articles.  However, I don't know enough about KTMW to "bring the other stuff up to the same level of sourcing" as Jclemens so wisely suggested.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, I just noticed. KTMW has been expanded, just as suggested by Jclemens, by 208.81.184.4.  Unless BDD has other issues that we can work on, then I see no reason to not merge these pages.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's really been done already, hasn't it? All that's left is to make this article a redirect when the AfD is closed. I think this would be an appropriate case for an early closure. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I will make the redirect, if an admin will please close this AFD.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:56, 13 August 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.