Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RightNetwork


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

RightNetwork

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:ONEEVENT. It's founding was covered in media. The network folded. Nothing is left. Mentionable on the page for Kelsey Grammer or Ed Snider, but not worthy of its own page per WP:ORG/WP:MEDIA. jps (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nominator and poor references. Meatsgains (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep No shortage of in depth coverage. A random sampling from the first couple of pages of a Google search... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. I don't think 1E is applicable to the founding of a media outlet. It may have been short lived but the coverage more than rings the WP:N bell. In fact I can't recall any article with this much coverage being deleted at AfD on the basis of lack of notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not persuaded that this falls under ONEEVENT. Rather, a couple of notable, deep-pockets conservatives were like, "Let's start a media network."  And they did.   It failed.  We record lots of enterprises that failed. As long as they were notable while they lasted.  Sources brought by  User:Ad Orientem establish that this one was.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Although there are 'some' notability present, in my opinion, it should not have its own article space. Scorpion293 (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: the quality of the article leaves much to be desired, but the subject matter is notable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the sources presented at this AfD appear to be sufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The significant coverage in reliable sources found by in USA Today and The Huffington Post among other sources demonstrates that RightNetwork passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as it's still advertising the fact the once-new publications that talked about this advertised it, and with it, advertising its sponsor and connections in advertising itself, hence it's enough to delete. As it is, for the article to then name Comcast as what was later not a customer is unconvincing and therefore hinted at PR alone. SwisterTwister   talk  06:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. this article is not "advertising" anything.  This short-lived attempt to establish a news network  happened.  Recording that fact is an appropriate role for an encyclopedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how this can be considered advertising when it's for a channel that no longer exists and hasn't for more than 5 years. Even their website is permanently down. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep the article certainly has its problems, attempting to use Youtube as a source(!) not once but twice! (What the-?) That said it's clear that substantial mainsteam reliable source coverage exists, even if the channel itself was short-lived. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:06, 15 November 2016 (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.