Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Kids


 * 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 G3 Revdel'd. What we have here is what was, originally, a perfectly reasonable redirect (to Sky Kids magazine) that was hijacked by an IP-sock to create a hoax article. There is, it turns out, apparently also an app by this name. Given that the article as it stands is a hoax, I am going to G3 it, restore the original redirect, and then protect it so the IP-sock can't do it again; if the app itself is notable, the article can be reformatted to be about it using the normal editing process. The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sky Kids

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It was speedy-delete-tagged, apparently as "There is no such television channel", but at 01:25, 12 November 2017‎ User:Metropolitan90 added a "hangon" message "this appears to be an app, not a TV channel; the article appears to be erroneous rather than a hoax". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The fact that a (not especially notable) app of that name happens to exist is a coincidence - this page was created by a long-running sockpuppet (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/GMTV Chart Show) who makes repeated fantasy claims of defunct TV channels relaunching, or non-existent channels entering the market. A 'Sky Kids' channel has been a persistent focus for them for many years, with nonsense claims to that effect being spread across other articles (e.g. Template:Children's channels in UK & Ireland) for the best part of a decade. The article isn't 'erroneous' or mistaken - every claim it makes is 100% untrue. If the app of the same name were considered notable enough to have a WP article then it would have one by now, but this article is certainly not the basis for it. I think it's fair to call it a hoax, plain and simple. Bonusballs (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2017 (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.