Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specialty channel


 * 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. There has been no clear direction throughout this AFD discussion, participants don't seem to know what they want done. No penalty on future AFD discussions but please have a concrete proposal for what you want to happen with an article, closers can't brainstorm on their own solutions, that's when we get taken to Deletion review for super voting. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Specialty channel

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article does not meet WP:GNG, and checks in WP:BEFORE did not help.

While trying to find sources for 'specialty channel', these are the types of content that I found:


 * A presentation on Prezi about specialty channels. Prezi is not a reliable source because of WP:UGC.
 * Many articles and books where they do not have a significant coverage of 'specialty channels'.
 * Websites promoting Specialty Channel Packs on DISH.
 * Many articles where 'specialty channels' are mentioned but it has nothing to do with television.
 * Directories of specialty channels in Canada.
 * A Fandom article, that is not reliable once again because of WP:UGC.
 * Many other websites and webpages that are not really sources for an encyclopedia.
 * Redirect perhaps to a cable television article. These channels are things that exist, but I don't see notability unless we're discussing the subscription TV world. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

A search result for 'specialty channels' on Google only returned 77,100 results.

The lack of any reliable and significant sources for the topic 'specialty channels' leads to this topic not being notable, and therefore cannot merit for a Wikipedia article.

This article also fails at WP:V and WP:NOR. The claims shown in the article are vague and have no citations. EJPPhilippines (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting for possible redirect suggestions. An AFD closer can only weigh options that are presented, not come up with our original ideas or edit the article ourselves. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. EJPPhilippines (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Reduce to known Canadian definition and redirect to specialty service The CRTC version is legally defined and easily meets WP:N. The other American-centric one is an anachronism in the 2020s, where only HGTV, Food Network and Cooking Channel actually meet their remit and the rest who don't restrict to one genre air anything at any time, and just WP:SYNTH.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The claim "about 65% of today's satellite channels are specialty channels" cannot pass WP:V, because when I tried to search this claim, I found no sources that prove it. A claim like this should have a date (e.g. 2022) and a country/region (e.g. Canada) that defines when and where this statement is true, but in this case, there isn't any. EJPPhilippines (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting once more. The recommendation to redirect this page to Specialty service is not a workable solution as that is a page that is just a redirect to this one, Specialty channel. Unless there is a concrete recommendation that can be considered, I'm doing a procedural close with this discussion as no outcome has been put forward. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: pro-tip for AfD nominators – if you find yourself putting together a list of entire categories of sources in proposing the deletion of an article, it's probably a good idea to step back and reconsider whether that potential AfD is actually justified. Some further comments about the article:
 * A "specialty channel" is a longstanding, fundamental concept in the TV industry (certainly for as long as cable TV has existed and continues to exist), and importantly there is much more to be said about it than a mere dictionary definition (which is often the reason for deleting this type of article) – even a simple list of channels is more than that already.
 * In my view this AfD is not even procedurally appropriate, because this page should only be nominated together with generalist channel. This isn't a case of WP:OSE, but nominating A and not not-A – each page hardly makes sense without the other.
 * As far as I am aware there is no legal definition of a "specialty channel" in Canada, and "specialty service" is itself a redirect so it is hard to understand why it was proposed as a redirect target here. There are similar CRTC definitions which include "service", particularly the current term "discretionary service" and its "category" predecessors, but the "specialty" term refers to channel genres (the new "discretionary" term in Canada is actually the result of the CRTC dropping genre protection so it's almost the opposite). Most importantly though, the fact that a somewhat-similar term is officially defined in a particular country is not a good reason to drop all information about the widespread (or even formerly widespread) usage of the term in other countries.
 * The fact that an article subject is an "anachronism" (which is not correct here anyhow, as those channels often continue to market themselves as specialty brands even if their content has shifted) is not relevant to a deletion discussion per WP:NTEMP. Modernponderer (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * I'm Withdrawing my vote per WP:TRAINWRECK; the nom didn't even address my rationale at all in any understandable or reasonable manner, and Modernponderer rolling in with a "pro tip" insulting my rationale wholesale (and having already TRAINWRECKed the BBC Kids nom by saying it was inexplicably a hoax, forcing after-AfD intervention) didn't help one bit. I did mean move this page to "specialty channel" originally and cut the unsourced information, but MP has a constant want to turn any AfD they're involved with into a battleground, blank out any user talk page discussion without archiving, and I have no want to even engage them further here. MP is advised not to argue this rationale (especially as I discovered they disagreed with my removal of their image on an article three months after deletion sarcastically without notification), here or on my talk page.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 09:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note for other editors: the above "!vote" includes a number of false WP:PERSONALATTACKS directed against me, which I have been forced to address at another user's talk page but will not cover here as AfD is not the place for this type of discussion (but not because of the "advice" above to essentially just shut up and take it). Modernponderer (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I am allowed to comment about your editing history and talk page behavior (which is open for anyone to see if they look at your contributions), and in no way was there a personal attack within. And as for edits you disagree with in article space, you're always free to revert me or upload the image anew if you disagree with said reversion. The image at Télétoon was removed by me as duplicative of other images in the article to fit our WP:FAIRUSE guidelines outside two words and was an English-language logo with English-language text, which is inappropriate to put into a French-Canadian article subject. This might be en.wiki but consideration to an article subject's native language is paramount..  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:36, 7 December 2022 (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.