Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Magyar Televízió/draft

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  delete. BencherliteTalk 10:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Magyar Televízió/draft
This was provided in May for an IP editor to work on proper referencing (they had been making lots of unsourced and contested changes previously). However, it's now October and all we have seen is some content tinkering with no efforts on finding sources - and we can't keep a version of an article indefinitely in Talk space. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the new stuff just added about clocks, here, is something the IP editor has added multiple times to the original article, but has had it removed as unsourced every time - he has been unable to tell us where the information came from. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I just added some informaton. Works I have to do is just adding references, which I'm sure to add before 2011.--125.25.31.3 (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems to have another IP editor joins the draft.--125.25.31.3 (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added some references.--125.25.31.3 (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your main addition is all the stuff about "Clocks", but you have provided no source for that. You must surely know where you got that information from, so just add the reference now and don't try to make us wait until some time "before 2011". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the references you have added are just snapshots of TV schedules on specific dates, and they do not support broadcasting hours for entire ranges of years, or document changes in broadcasting hours. In fact, I wonder if selected "opening and closing" times for various years are really of any encyclopedic value at all? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. The added sources do not, as noted by Boing! said Zebedee, improve the quality of the article. Because five months have passed, and because the draft shows no improvements to the article, this page should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw some references added now--125.25.87.103 (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not true, I've just edited few days ago.--125.27.55.153 (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless it goes for about six months unaltered, I tend to look at that as a reasonable period of time. Requiring that we debate "improvements" as opposed to "edits" would be a substantial waste of time on MfD.  Collect (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's already been five and a half months, and all we've really seen is some unsourced material added - an addition that has been removed several times already from the original article, and which the author has repeatedly failed to source or explain -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Move and  delete seems ready as an article now. it is then. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  11:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no, the original article is already there, at Magyar Televízió - this was a copy of it made for an IP editor to work on, but they have only added unsourced and dubious content. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This was created in May with the edit summary "This is the draft, once I've got 10 references then I will move it to main." Nearly six months later, it is still being tinkered with, and meanwhile the main article is also being edited. It is extremely undesirable to have two versions of an article being developed in parallel, because of the problems of re-merging without losing attribution for some edits. Also, in my opinion, the detailed historical tables of opening times being developed here are unencyclopedic detail per WP:IINFO, and the earlier ones are likely to impossible to source. JohnCD (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move I'm NOT the creator or editor, he helped the article but not finished at this time, he added some reliable referenes now--125.25.87.103 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there are NO references added for the bulk of the new material, the "Clocks" stuff. The other references added are just referencing trivia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My reference is better than you want, I source it from the official website.--125.27.55.153 (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have provided NO reference for your own big addition, the "Clocks" stuff. You must surely know where you got the information, so just add it as a reference and stop this playing around. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will find some today and stop this.--125.27.55.153 (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was two days ago, so come on, where is it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There are several editors in the 125.2x.x.x range in Bangkok who have been causing a lot of problems with articles related to TV channels over the course of the year, and none of them listens to anything we tell them about proper sourcing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: To the closing admin - you can see examples here of the the kind of runaround we have been getting from this small number of IP editors. This "work" page was a good faith attempt to try to help them understand and use proper referencing, but it has clearly been a failed exercise. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And now they're piling on bad faith by accusing those of us trying to protect Wikipedia of sockpuppetry - see User talk:Ged UK -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to do these, but I just ask.--125.27.55.153 (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a reference to test card, and finding more--125.27.55.153 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a start, but what we most need is a reference for the large amount of "Clocks" information that you added. So just tell us where you got it from - you do know, don't you? Or did you just dream it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Reason I didn't edit in 5 months is because I don't live at my house, I live far away without internet.--125.27.55.153 (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What a striking coincidence that you return to have internet access just at the time that the page is under threat of deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I can see no justification for keeping this at all. Any edits should be made to the article, not to a separate copy, creating problems if and when merging is required, quite apart from the fact that little or no useful editing has taken place anyway. In addition, an anonymous IP editor cannot create an article, and creation of what is effectively an article in talk space is highly dubious, to say the least. All things considered this seems to me more of a way of keeping a content fork which would not have been permitted in mainspace than a way of keeping a temporary copy for editing in preparation for returning to mainspace. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And if the main article is semi-protected and an IP wishes to edit it, make an Edit semi-protected request on the Talk page and I'll be happy to review it and add it to the article for you if it's properly sourced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep if the IP agrees to register. It's a borderline article, but the editor can work more effectively with the community if he registers.  He seems genuinely interested in our cause, and I'd like to see him stay.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the IP registers an account, we'll have no need to keep this Talk space copy (which was only created for IPs to work on), seeing as he'll then be able to edit the real one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Content fork in talk space with changes that have little chance of being accepted into the main article due to their lack of sources and their excessive unencyclopedic detail. I'm all for giving some leeway on clearly marked userspace drafts, but this is in Talk and there is no indication that the IP intends to register after all these months. Also, I note that oddity that a second IP from the same range and (non-Hungarian) geolocation suddenly found this draft during MFD and came here to !vote "keep", despite having only one edit ever beforehand. --RL0919 (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, as I said above, "There are several editors in the 125.2x.x.x range in Bangkok...". We've been having trouble with them for months -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. OK, I've gone through the additions made to this Talk space version since it was copied from the original article, with a view to merging anything that looks good. However, what I have found is...
 * A new "Clocks" section containing descriptions of various clocks used at various times, but it's completely unsourced, and descriptions of visual items are largely useless. This has been removed from the main article before for being unsourced, and the author steadfastly refuses all requests to tell us where he got the information.
 * Descriptions of test cards. This has one source, but that just shows a whole load of test cards for various channels, and there's no way to tie it with "PM5544" etc - and it does not support the stated dates either. So we have descriptions of visual items again, which are again effectively unsourced, and again the author will not say where he actually got his information - where did he get "PM5544", for example?
 * Lists of approximate open and close times for various time periods. But they're vague ("closes sometime between...") and effectively unsourced. A couple of refs showing schedule snapshots from specific dates do not attest to the whole ranges of dates and do not document schedule changes. And it it all seems like unencyclopedic trivia anyway.
 * And that's it - I really don't think we can trust any of that, given the author's long history of evasiveness when asked where he got his info - and I really doubt any of it is worth keeping anyway.
 * -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 29 October 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.