Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Kidz


 * 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 Delete  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Star Kidz

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable tv show, probably a hoax nat.utoronto 09:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's definitely not a hoax (see  ), but I couldn't find any real sources discussing the show--the best I got was articles about one of the former presenter's sex scandal.  -- jonny - m  t  10:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've looked around and I agree with jonny-mt in that most of the discussion seems to be centered on the sex scandal, Although I'm not certain if it should be kept or not. There looks like there may be a few articles around, but I suspect the real problem is that it is difficult to determine the notability of something from Zimbabwe by relying on hits found on Google. I'll keep looking, but it may be worth keeping in mind that the article is only four days old, and it may be that the notability could be established through print sources by someone more local. - Bilby (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm going with keep (although not strong), as I've added what I could find about the channel online, which brings it up to stub class, I think. I don't feel that I've established notability, but there was enough to make me believe that it is notable in Zimbabwe and that, given time, someone might establish this (especially given that the article has only been around for a few days). There's also a couple of extra articles which might help, but I can't access them from here. - Bilby (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per Bilby's good work in adding sources. Even if the sources themselves do not cover the channel itself in detail, this should be notable in its part of the world, and we should avoid systematic bias against subjects related to countries that people who edit Wikipedia are less likely to reside in or know about.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the reason why I listed "probably a hoax" as one of my reasons to delete was because the creator of the article has very little credibility in my view as his vandalism is to insert deliberately false information into articles. nat.utoronto 03:44, 9 March 2008 (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.