Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Flying House


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Flying House

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Obscure anime tv series. Article is currently sourced solely to IMDB and is mainly a plot summary/cast list (WP:IINFO). Google News & Google Books appear to turn up no coverage on this "The Flying House". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep 50 episodes x 30 Mins = 25 hours. Aired on a notable network TV Tokyo for nearly a year, totalizing 25 hours of program and produced by a notable studio Tatsunoko Production. It's only fault is to be a Japanese show. My keep is on the basis of OUTCOMES X WP:BIAS. --KrebMarkt (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It also aired on the Christian Broadcasting Network in the US for several years as well along with Superbook. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither network would count as "broadcast nationally by a major network", even if WP:OUTCOMES didn't warn: "Avoid using this informational page as the sole argument in an AfD discussion." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * CBN actually would since it was on cable systems throughout the United States. It was eventually rebranded as the Family Channel, with the CBN name reserved for Pat Roberson's program, The 700 Club, before being acquired by ABC to become ABC Family. The series has also appeared on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, another nationwide Christian cable network. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would seem unlikely that a cable channel would count as "a major network". Cable channel states: "Another common label is cable network, though this is something of a misnomer. While usually national in scope, cable channels are not television networks in the defined sense". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So in other words, what you are saying is that if its not broadcast on ABC, CBS, or NBC, then it doesn't fall under WP:OUTCOMES. I think that line of reasoning shows a lot of bias as Trinity Broadcasting Network is one of the largest Christian networks in the US and available on most cable systems. Just because it is on cable or satalite doesn't mean that it doesn't qualify as "a major network". —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Or BBC or ITV in the UK, ABC or SBS in Australia, etc, etc. Religious broadcasting is generally niche broadcasting -- particularly as it tends to be heavily sectarian (and neither CBN or TBN are exceptions to that). "Just because it is on cable or satalite doesn't mean that it doesn't qualify as 'a major network'." Actually, it means that it doesn't formally qualify as a "network" at all -- that was Cable channel's point. It is simply an optional channel piggy-backing on some cable or satellite operator's network. There are hundreds of such channels -- they are neither "networks" nor "major". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "it doesn't formally qualify as a "network" at all." You know, that shows a lot of bias on you part. Any cable channel that is distributed nationwide through cable television or satellite is generally considered a "network". And WP:OUTCOMES doesn't make a distintion between cable networks and over-the-air networks. So don't confuse the medium (over-the-air vs cable) with whether the series was broadcast nationwide. As for whether CBN or TBN are "major" since they are/have been distributed on most cable system, that would definitely be considered major. If they weren't major network, then they wouldn't have been carried by most cable systems. Christian programing may be a niche, but it is a huge niche comparable to sports, music, or news programming. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No -- that is the "bias" of the definition of the word "network" in a telecommunications context -- it implies infrastructure, not merely piggy-backing on somebody else's. As I said before, there are probably hundreds of of such cable channels carried on the cable networks. Such channels are typically by-subscription and so typically do not reach nearly as many households as free-to-air networks, therefore their programming generally does not get the same exposure, and thus notability. If you WP:WIKILAWYER enough you can probably 'prove' that anything calling itself a network is "a major network" -- but that will not mean that its programming has the same penetration (and thus notability) as ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, ITV, etc. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Network has a very broad definition. I find it funny that you cite WP:WIKILAWYER at me when it is YOU are the one trying to narrow it down based on technicalities. "Such channels are typically by-subscription and so typically do not reach nearly as many households as free-to-air networks, therefore their programming generally does not get the same exposure" Ok, we can both agree that the intent of WP:OUTCOMES is exposure and not the technicalities of what a network is or is not. But your assertion that cable networks don't have the same "exposure" is ridiculous on its face. Most homes receive their television through cable or satellite. In fact, cable networks have been drawing larger audiences than ABC, NBC, and CBS, which you hold up as "major". TBN is also free to cable and satellite subscribers and doesn't require any additional fees. But even for premium channels, like HBO and Showtime, I would still HBO and Showtime as fulfilling the "major network" description because they are widely distributed. Again, the delivery method is not the issue here, but the exposure to a national audience. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @Hrafn Permit to laugh. TV Tokyo just happen to be the very one who broadcast/broadcasted among others Naruto ref 1, Bleach ref 2, Gin Tama ref 3, Fairy Tail ref 4, Letter Bee ref 5, Hamtaro ref 6, Inazuma Eleven ref 7, Sgt. Frog ref 8, Bakugan Battle Brawlers ref 8, Soul Eater ref 9, Yugioh 5d ref 10 and Pokémon ref 11. Calling it a non important network in dismissive way is acting either by ignorance or outright trolling. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Add to the list: Eyeshield 21 ref 12, Golgo 13 ref 13, Skip Beat ref 14, Shugo Chara! ref 15, D.Gray-man ref 16, Reborn! ref 17, Gurren Lagann ref 18. I don't think a small network can get that strong licenses. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * KrebMarkt: permit me to point out that you appear to be laughing at a phantom. I never said that TV Tokyo wasn't "major". I would however point out that it does not (at least according to its article) "broadcast nationally". I would further LAUGH at a bunch of editors "using [WP:OUTCOMES] as the sole argument in an AfD discussion" in direct contravention of that page's advice. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Hrafn Laughing out you in return again, the Kantō region is having a population over 42 millions inhabitants which happen to be more than Belgium, Netherlands or Poland. Another thing that wasn't mentioned is that when people mention TV Tokyo it refers to TV Tokyo Network or TXN which extends to even more inhabitants. --KrebMarkt (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * KrebMarkt: you can laugh inanely all you want. (i) WP:OUTCOME states "broadcast nationally" not 'broadcast to XX million', and 42 million is only one third of the national population of Japan. (ii) You continue to make WP:OUTCOME "the sole argument in an AfD discussion" in direct contravention of that page's advice. You would do far better to find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to demonstrate notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP is not a TV directory. Unless there are secondary sources which discuss a program in depth there is really nothing for an article to say. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 *  Merge into Superbook  The back and forth on this revolves around sources and although I know it is a notable series for the CBN network's children's schedule (and TBN to this day), the sources are few, which is always a major frustration for children's television involving Christian themes, where we can easily find many, many sources for even the worst animation flops of the 80's like Filmation's Ghostbusters, but sources for TBN and CBN shows are usually limited to primary sources saying it merely exists (as here with only 450 G-hits) because the fanbase usually hasn't either followed to the Internet age or they exist in small social circles; I've had to defend many an article involving Christian animated series while we can go on and on about one-season and little-watched reality shows like Oxygen's Breaking Up with Shannen Doherty. However the Superbook article is sourced quite well, so merging those details of The Flying House into that of Superbook would make for a good even compromise, and would not be of any harm to that article at all. But if good sources can be found, I do recommend a keep since it aired on a cable network with national reach.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would point out that Superbook is likewise lacking in third-party/WP:SECONDARY sourcing. It is sourced primarily to CBN and (the not particularly reliable-looking) CEGAnMo.com. And it only has 6 citations for a 24k article. So no, it is not "sourced quite well", but is merely sourced slightly better than this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, my argument is that the form of programming is a niche form that needs to have a different standard of notability than mainstream series. I have to argue that for what it is, the article is sourced as much as it can be without going into 'this is my remember when this show was on blog' territory. You can certainly not judge this on the same level as mainstream series such as Transformers and the Power Rangers franchise; it has to be judged on the level with series that are little viewed by mainstream audience, but maintain a strong following among their smaller yet still as loyal niche.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (i) Your argument is a special pleading (a logical fallacy). The world is full of "niche form[s]" needing a "different" (but always lower) "standard of notability". (ii) The fact that affilaited sources are the best sources you can come up with (and remember just about every niche topic will have affiliated sources) means that it fails WP:GNG. Superbook also mostly fails WP:V (as the majority of it is unsourced) & WP:IINFO (being mostly plot summaries, cast lists, episode listings, etc). (iii) You have not proposed a "different standard of notability" that would appear to either (a) be objectively assessable or (b) provides any substantive restriction (i.e. is a meaningful standard). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am beginning to think you want this article deleted not for notability concerns, but because of the content of the program itself. I made a reasonable argument that it is a piece of media with a naturally lower viewership because of the program's content and to merge it into a related article, but you don't want that. The truth is, CBN/Family Channel was a top ten cable network in the 1980's with universal availability in almost every cable home in the United States. It also was created originally for airing on a national network in Japan. There is no way around it; it has established itself as notable in the way it has, and thus I change my argument fully to Keep as my attempt to appease your concerns by asking for a merge of content has completely been discounted, not to mention it has five established articles on international Wikipedia sites, including the Japanese version.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 11:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article seems to be in a nice structure, has links & references, & the plot doesn't seem too overly detailed considering it's a 52 episode series. &mdash;  ク  Eloc   貢  06:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as it was broadcast on a major national network (TV Tokyo) and due to coverage in a major Japanese magazine (Animage, April 1982, p.64 features a review of the series). It is likely covered in other magazines from that time period, too (I haven't gotten around to indexing all of them yet). Merging it into the Superbook article would not be effective as it's a completely separate series. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 08:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TV Tokyo is not a national network. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Must you harass everyone who disagrees with you? And did you even bother to read my comments? Exactly where do I use WP:OUTCOMES as an argument, let alone as a "sole argument"? (you did notice that I included a specific reference to a specific page in a specific magazine which reviews this series, right? Animage meets WP:RS in spades.) And since when is TV Tokyo not a major national network in Japan? Have you ever lived in Japan? Do you know anything about Japan at all? TV Tokyo is as much a national network in Japan as ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox are national networks in the United States. It's the largest network in Japan outside of NHK. ··· 日本穣 ? ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 09:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason I suggested the merge was an attempt to have a compromise with Hrafn, but obviously he'd rather not have that. Your reasons are spot on for sure that yes, it aired on a national Japanese network and that should be considered as the yardstick for notability, but it seems like he wants to push that under the rug.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 11:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the first clue that he's not willing to be swayed is his calling the series "obscure". That couldn't be more of a misnomer in this case. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 16:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Krebmarkt. Edward321 (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the foregoing. I'd also like to mention that the hits may be valuable; for example, apparently there was a remake of The Flying House in Nigeria of all places. The 4 hits in Google Books may also be worth investigating. --Gwern (contribs) 22:35 16 December 2010 (GMT)
 * Keep per the reasoning above, the series appears notable enough for wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2010 (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.