Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NT van Ketnet

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 merge to Ketnet. The consensus is that there are insufficient sources to establish the notability of this show for a stand-alone article. If sufficient reliable sources are found at a future date, an article could be created if warranted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[]

NT van Ketnet[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2008 Interlaker (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[]

Merge with Ketnet. This source (which I think is based on a press release?) does support what the stub says, so It would be fine in Ketnet but may not be notable enough for its own article. Though there are a number of hits on Google, but I don't read Dutch so I don't know the reliability of them. Wugapodes (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this no0tice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep - Lack of sources is not a valid delete reason. I just put Wugapodes's source into the article so even less reason. Merge could create WP:UNDUE in Ketnet. Best for AfD to leave this alone let editors more familiar with this material decide how it should be organized. ~Kvng (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[]

I really doubt that a single sentence about a channel published by the network would violate WP:UNDUE. Also, lack of sources in an article isn't a reason for deletion but lack of sources existing is. My point is that none of the ones I saw on Google looked particularly non-trivial (they looked to be channel listings or self-published from the ones I looked at). And the fact that the article has remained unsourced for 7 years makes me less inclined to believe proper sources exist. If it were a new article I'd give more leeway and time to see if maybe something was overlooked but when it's been around 7 years without a single source being added, I believe that's non-trivial in discussing notability. Wugapodes (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete or merge to Ketnet. No independent reliable sources indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2015 (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.