Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlton Kids

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. A merge can be done outside of the scope of this AfD Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Kids

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been tagged with no sources for 10 years! One of the major pillars of wikipedia is all content must be attributed to reliable sources. Per WP:BEFORE no sources appear to be readily available and in anycase even if some could be found I do not believe the article satisfies our notability criteria. As my action to redirect this page to the parent company page Carlton Television was reverted I am nominating this for deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge as nominator. Although sources have been added to the article in the short space of time since the nomination was made, many are very trivial mentions backing up specific facts in the article and do not establish independent notability. Polyamorph (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to merge, see my comment below re: merging to the parent company page Carlton Television where sections already exist for this and other independently non-notable channels. Polyamorph (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just because the article featured no sources does not mean that none were available - I was able to add a decent number just by means of a simple Google search. Simply deleting the article without seeking to find sources to improve the article in the first instance, or considering alternatives such as merging, doesn't seem like the best first step in my opinion. I hope that others can continue to improve the article in addition. Bonusballs (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my nomination I looked for sources, and there were none readily available to demonstrate independent notability. As I explained in my addendum many/all the sources you added are not articles discussing the subject of the article directly and make only very trivial mentions of Carlton kids - this is not sufficient. But by all means improve the article if you can. Polyamorph (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that references have been added, the article should be kept. Also, it meets the notability criteria. Rillington (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added two more references which are directly related to the channel. They provide information regarding some of the programmes that were broadcast on Carlton Kids. Rillington (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added two youtube videos! I still see no references in this entire article which satisfy our general notability criteria.Polyamorph (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added an additional reference. The article is about the closure of three of the Carlton channels, including Carlton Kids. This satisfies the general notability criteria. Rillington (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge I really just don't see the need for removal. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the page was unsourced for 10 years and although sources have since been found they do not represent significant coverage. It's a non-notable defunct channel, a redirect to parent company would be sufficient. Polyamorph (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that, but I would at least try looking for more sources/information to add to the page before outright deleting it. Either way, it can't go unmentioned as it is part of a trio of channels launched by Carlton Television in 1998. Maybe there is a related page we could merge it into? Also, Carlton World seems to be in the same situation.HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge into Carlton Television, where sections on these individual (but independently non-notable) channels already exist.Polyamorph (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good outcome, since the page is somewhat small. I support a merge now. I think Cartlon World should get similar treatment.HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources indicate channel is notable. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources haven't been updated in 10 years, plus, it was only operational for barely a year. I was orginally on board with keeping the article but now I believe it should be merged into Carlton Television. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.