Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogers Sportsnet

VfD 2004
was at : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_May_2004&oldid=3453001#Rogers_Sportsnet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.193.90 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep

Article lised on Votes for deletion Apr 29 to May 6 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Non-notable except that it is media and it exists. Falcon 03:30, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A notable television channel. Everyking 04:00, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I tend to feel that the media, at least, is inherently notable. Isomorphic 04:04, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is like one of the only channels I watch on TV! :) Adam Bishop 04:33, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Think before you nominate such a major subject. You're wasting everybody's time with this, Falcon. -- user:zanimum
 * You're even Canadian, seeing your user page. -- user:zanimum
 * Maybe the Rogers building down the street is exerting some kind of control over my brain, but I say Keep. --Phil Larin 17:04, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, we have many articles on television stations. - SimonP 18:21, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've removed the channel assignments (Canada, believe it or not, actually has more than two cable providers!), but otherwise the article is entirely legitimate. Of course, like Phil Larin, I live within view of the Rogers building. But it's still absolutely relevant. Bearcat 07:07, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've expanded the article a bit. Rdash (t) 20:28, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Whats the big idea removing the Forum part of the page?
 * To whoever keeps editing the page and putting insults.. give it up you immature son of a bitch!--Mcmlxxviii 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sportsnet.ca has a forum that everyone participates in, So why remove it? it's factual..??? --Mcmlxxviii 23:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

End discussion