Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Mall


 * 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

TV Mall

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Was formerly a South African teleshopping network on satellite (allegedly the 'first ever' in that country, which is questionably sourced), but less than two years later was thrown off that service; since then its only existence has been as a YouTube/social media channel with less than 2,000 subscribers, thus it's lost its claim to the bare WP:N/WP:BCAST it ever held, if any. Also to be considered that the network was a part-time effort and has never carried a full-time 168-hour schedule in a week, even as a programming loop. PROD was rejected, but no incoming links from any other articles.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. A topic does not lose its notability by its death or disestablishment. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Response The network still exists as a YouTube channel, and has never filled a 24-hour broadcast day with content. Unless this was a network from before the age of digital satellite or cable where it had to be limited by channel capacity or is a sports network, we generally don't have articles here for part-time channels, especially shopping networks that carry little original content (most of the network's content is DRTV ads and products imported from the States and the UK).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eastmain. Once a threshold of notability has been met it can not be unmet. The fact that a particular company at one time met BCAST means it always has made that benchmark, even if it currently does not meet that criteria. As an encyclopedia we look at the entire history of a topic, not just it's present state. That said, I didn't take a look at sourcing for this topic, so I am not judging my keep vote based on whether the topic meets GNG, but merely responding to a flawed nomination rationale.4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment But the network originates none of its own content. We usually have shown little patience with infomercial channels, especially ones that have an extremely low viewership. No new links have been added in the last two weeks; this is a literal orphan article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, flawed arguments. Being an orphan does not qualify an article for deletion or impact it's notability in any way. De-orphaning articles is a simple matter of wiki linking articles into the encyclopedia which is easily done with television stations by finding relevant list articles. I can't comment on the no original content claim. Usually infomercial channels film their own infomercials, so it would be odd to claim it has no original content as an infomercial itself is original content. Were they importing infomercials from outside and simply leasing out their channel space? If not BCAST has clearly been met. Lastly, what's your evidence of low viewership when it was on satelite TV?4meter4 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I...need to cite the fact that a shopping channel has low viewership? I have already cited that the YouTube channel has less than 2,000 subscribers, their Instagram is <1,400 followers, and their Twitter is <1,000 followers. It should be self-evident that it's low-viewed solely on that, and shopping channels never subscribe to ratings services. And they import most of their infomercials from the UK and US, just adding in a local voiceover where needed.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. "Once notable, always notable" is relevant if the topic was once notable, but I see no indication that this minor infomercial channel ever was. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete no indication from sources that it ever was notable and that is despite being an English language media platform. Only sources I could find were primary, press releases and blogs ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:13, 10 September 2021 (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.