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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network (2nd nomination)[edit]

Previously deleted through a mass-nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batang Kaharian, but this one was much fuller than the others, so listing separately. No vote. Chick Bowen 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll let someone else do the search engine test on these folks. I applaud the nominator's good judgment in separating this article because of its length. In the final result, though, the article is totally unsourced, and serves the purpose of its religious cult, not of the information-seeking Wikipedia community. YechielMan 05:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm still not sure whether I'm for keeping this, but there are actual sources in the "References" section, so calling it "totally unsourced" is a little strong. Perhaps you missed them the first time? William Pietri 19:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good call. What I should have said was that the article content, as relates to the individual shows (not the network as a whole), reads like an advertisement. YechielMan 20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed. Note that bad content is not grounds for deletion. If you don't like the content, change it or add a warning notice at the top of the article. Deletion should be limited to articles that should never be or are completely unsalvageable. William Pietri 03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Google hits can be viewed here, I don't see any reliable sources among the first few hits, mainly Wikipedia sites, its mirrors, advertisements of the broadcasting network and the website. I don't see any reason why article should be kept. Its just a non-notable channel by a church. As far as I know, there is no assertion of notability about this company. Terence Ong 09:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; here is a link to the first nom: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network. Tizio 16:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the guy who saved this from the dumpster the first time, I'm concerned that things like the Google test and the "I haven't heard of it" test are prone to systemic bias for regional items in countries where English isn't the primary language. Although I have an admitted bias against both cults and spam, I think articles on spammy or culty topics shouldn't have to meet a higher bar than other topics. My take is that they have press coverage, transmitters in two major Phillipine cities, and a presence on dozens of Phillipine city cable systems. Were this, say, a Texas religious broadcaster, I think we'd cover them, so this one should stay, too. Further, I don't think they have become less notable than the last AfD, which was a keep. William Pietri 19:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep firstly, it is sourced. Considering it is in the Phillipines, it certainly passes a Google test (which is a guideline at best). Just look past the wikipedia mirrors. Also "reading like an advertisement" is not cause for deletion. —siro χ o 08:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Consensus is that radio/TV broadcasters and channels are notable. There are sources provided that confirm these channels exist so what's needed is the turning of the current article into something encyclopaedic. Nuttah68 13:44, 3 February 2007 (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.