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. As Dennis remarks, WP:BROADCAST is only an essay and even that does not claim that all TV channels are notable. There are no sources in the article or in the older version linked to by EBY) and none of the participants seems to have found significant coverage. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liquidation Channel[edit]

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

Highly promotional article with no apparent support from independent sources. Whilst there might be enough out there to warrant a page about this company, it would make more sense to delete and start over than to work from this advert masquerading as an article. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very low-notability shopping channel, but this version of the article can't be rescued. Should be focused on the channel's history, not how many mines it leases products from and its shipping policies. Sadly, this version of the article from 2011 is the most neutral version that can be found. Finally, every edit since May 2014 looks like it's been made by a walled garden of possible WP:COI accounts that's gone unnoticed since most WP:TV editors usually don't edit shopping/infomercial channel articles. Nate • (chatter) 00:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Television channels are presumed notable according to WP:BROADCAST, and WP:COI is not a reason for deletion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when did we not enforce COI?! We have a user named Vaibhavhitesh (talk · contribs) editing the article with promotional information who just happens to be part of a company called Vaibhav Global Limited, which owns the network. That's my concern, that it's become a mission statement for VGL rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. Actually read my rationale for deletion, please; we don't keep blatant ads for companies here. Nate • (chatter) 16:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , Just because it's perceived to be a "low-notability" shopping channel doesn't mean it's not article-worthy. It's carried on the two major satellite providers in the United States as well as most cable systems. If other low-tier shopping channels merit a listing, so should the Liquidation Channel. Nemalki (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, if it was the neutral version I linked to from 2011, it would be an easy keep. This barely talks about the channel itself, but a bunch of websites, blogs and 'who cares' information about how the company gets their product. Nate • (chatter) 16:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would remind folks that WP:BROADCAST isn't a policy. It isn't even a guideline. It is an essay. While essays are often useful, and I don't doubt that most of the time this essay is, at the end of the day, we assume nothing, including notability. In this case, we have a minor channel that is literally one big commercial. This is the type of channel that cables companies don't have to pay for, the channel pays the cable companies to be included. Short of rock solid references, that fact lets us apply WP:COMMONSENSE, which trumps all policies, and say that without proper references, we can't say it passes our criteria for inclusion. I'm guessing, and hoping, that this will get relisted so more eyes can look at it. Dennis - 2¢ 22:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert & Keep. [This version, found by NorthAmerica, because the channel does exist and broadcasts. About the COI editing, the article needs watching and possibly protecting. Perhaps vandal warning. It gets tiresome, but it's the process. I'm reverting to that edit, and setting it to watch. EBY (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2014 (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.