Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSPTV
Appearance
- 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- SSPTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an unreferenced article on a local cable access channel. Would need to make WP:ORG, and I don't see how that could be possible. John from Idegon (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep but add references please. Where are the references? Regards Expressway232 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expressway232 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete There are hardly any sources available for this. I am having trouble even verifying the information. At best this would be a local television channel with hardly any secondary sources. Due to verifiability concerns, I will go for a TNT delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I agree that verifiability is a huge concern here, and I think we don't have much option but to delete at this time. If a contributor can provide reliable sources, it can be recreated at that time. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as an unreferenced WP:PROMO page. There's nothing there. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2016 (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.