Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Riyadiah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 no consensus. v/r - TP 01:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Al Riyadiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
notability, lack of sources, soap boxing, content fails to focus on a topic —EncMstr (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article makes no sense whatsoever, and I agree with reasons for nomination.--Rxlxm (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete verges on WP:G1. I can't make head nor tail of it. Yunshui (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete even though it is quite funny and illustrates the perils of machine translationTigerboy1966 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep contrarian view, apparently! Reasons: 1) this appears to be the only article on the Broadcasting Services of KSA (BSKSA) (which needs its own article); 2) I've added some facts and citations (citations missing from the article's counterpart on Arabic Wikipedia). Suggest stripping out the gibberish, which is probably a machine translation of copyrighted info anyway, and leaving the infobox and lede paragraph, tagging as stub, and waiting for expansion. — Brianhe (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correcting self on point 1 above: there also exists Saudi T.V. Channel 1 and Saudi T.V. Channel II. But I'm sticking with keep. Brianhe (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As far as I recall it has been standard practice to keep articles on all licensed terrestrial radio and TV channels in the United States. Is there any reason why we should treat Saudi channels any differently? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time I nominated the article for AfD, it was far from clear that the article was about a broadcast channel. Recent work on the article has improved it greatly. —EncMstr (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean my comment as a criticism of your nomination, but as a question about what we should now do with the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No criticism taken. If all my initial concerns are addressed, I'll revoke the nomination. The improvements so far clarify what the article is about, and decent citations imply a degree of notability. The babble about Ageora knees and similar ilk need to go, but I know little about such subjects. —EncMstr (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean my comment as a criticism of your nomination, but as a question about what we should now do with the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, appears to be a notable channel. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 29 September 2011 (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.