Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Viewers Like You (2nd nomination)

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 relevant content into Public Broadcasting Service parent article. Please note, I will not be merging any content as closing administrator. I will only be performing a redirect from this title to Public Broadcasting Service. Use the page history of the redirect page to perform the merge. Please ask if you need assistance, or see WP:MERGE. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Viewers Like You

Template:La –

AfDs for this article:

The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix.

It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles.

Template:La – (View log)

• Comment: I'm completing an incomplete nomination. Remaining neutral at this time. Redfarmer (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• The nominator speaks: Twinkle ate my very well-reasoned, well-considered (not to mention utterly humble and self-effacing) delete argument, so here it goes again--I anticipate catching a fair deal of hell for this nomination. This was up at AfD in July of 2006 [1] and consensus was "keep", with six editors participating. Now, six editors IS a consensus, granted, but it seems like a smallish one, and consensus can change. Having said that: I have had qualms about this article since I saw it bluelinked in all the PBSKids articles in the "funding" sections; mixed in among actual corporations and foundations, here's "Viewers Like You"--a concept, not an entity. Reading the article, I find that it's largely a list of variations in usage of this phrase, along with the dates and situations under which these variations came about. I don't see how that merits an article of its own. According to the notability guidelines, "notability" = significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The first two, we've got; the third, I don't see. Gladys J Cortez 18:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge The last AfD debate seemed to bypass the whole issue of notability and coverage in secondary sources. I'm sure there are lots of Wikipedians who have a soft spot for PBS, but that in and of itself doesn't establish anything. This article has a painful level of detail and the whole thing could be covered in two or three sentences in the main PBS article. Sorry Mr. Rogers Beeblbrox (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Normal practice when renominating an article is to post a more visible link to the first debate, in part so that people are apprised at the outset that this is a second nomination. As such, the incomplete nomination has only been incompletely completed. One wouldn't know that there had been a previous discussion, other than that Gladys volunteered that information after the nomination was supposedly completed. If it's properly nominated, then I'd say "keep" because the phrase has significance outside of being an intro and outro for PBS shows. In three words, it summarizes the nature of public television-- no commercial interruptions, but advertising in the form of acknowledgment to contributors, and annual interruptions of programming by fundraisers. Mandsford (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what your complaint is. Gladys is the nominator and she did post a link. Your comments above seem to be for moot. Redfarmer (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I hope that I'm putting the table in right. I like that expression.. the comments "seem to be for moot". Mandsford (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Now THAT's how you post a link. And THAT's how you complete an incomplete nomination. Moot moot moot! Mandsford (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment First: normal practice when entering a WP:CIVIL discussion is to avoid snarky condescension about other people's grammatical and usage errors. Secondly: The original nomination was made through Twinkle. Twinkle, as mentioned above, did something aberrant to my nomination, which included removing my original rationale. Apparently, the process was truncated somewhere along the line, for reasons beyond my control. Your insistence on a small point of process doesn't make the nomination any less valid ("if it's properly nominated...") and your verbal victory-dance, based on your "superior" knowledge and execution of this small point of process, comes off, at best, as pedantic and self-congratulatory. Gladys J Cortez 23:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read this discussion several times and I still don't know who Twinkle is. Mandsford (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:TWINKLE Redfarmer (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge into the PBS article or a PBS 'phrase' article. As this exists it is WP:OR failing WP:V, and WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into PBS, as PBS is the only station that notably uses the phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigby27 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

move to close the only keep is based on technical issues, not the merits of the subject. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• MERGE, I grew up with "made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting...and Viewers Like You!" The phrase is notable because of its longevity and its recognizability, however it is not that notable to have its own article page. Very few hold that honor...perhaps only those of the calibre ofthose such as, "The Few, The Proud, The Marines" could rate its own article.--Sallicio^$\oplus$ 10:54, 13 February 2008 (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.