![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The image Image:Wnem dt2 mntv.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 06:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Why eliminate cleanup or refimprove tags on an article with as divisive talk as this one has? Those tags are there to alert other contributors who may have access to sources and non-original research to improve this article. Its redundant and has no sourcing and requires housekeeping to justify its credibility on Wikipedia. Please don't make edits only to justify a position these tags are to help keep Wikipedia credible. BTW how unfortunate to see one of the five pilars of Wikipedia almost ignored in that archived talk right from the start with that Make up your mind comment. Good Grief 173.121.255.204 ( talk) 05:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article should be deleted and its information added as a subcatagory to the WNEM-TV page. This is not a seperate entity from WNEM-TV and the subject does not posses any relevance to merit its own seperate page. It has the same physical address, broadcasts at the same frequency, the same owner and has the same personnel as WNEM-TV. This is not like WNEM AM which is a different medium, broadcasting on a diffrent frequency with its own seperate license and history. This article is also written without a single citation, unverifiable and contains non-encyclopedic language. -Wxyzdan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.98.10.49 ( talk) 01:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
As said above...
This article should be deleted and its information added as a subcatagory to the WNEM-TV page.
Its the same entity not something seperate. The reason for deletion should fall under the Wikipedia guideline as a redundant or useless templet. Nearly all of the information on this page is redundent to the WNEM-TV page. The text about WNEM's programming on 5.2 and its cable coverage should be included on the WNEM-TV article. This article also does not site any sources to its information.
Support This is dumb, this is the same TV station. None of the other stations on here have seperate pages for there subchannels. This should be deleted. There'd be tons of extra articles out there if we had one for every subchannel. 70.8.99.167 ( talk) 04:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Strong and Speedy Oppose: - Technically it is in the right place. WNEM-TV is a CBS affiliate, while WNEM-DT2 (it's actual callsign) is a MyNetworkTV affiliate. They are two seperate stations, but operating on the same station via digital subchannels. This is the MOS and WP:TVS way of doing things. So, they should not be merged. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Spshu ( talk) 13:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose deletion While the broadcast notability essay does say "television subchannels generally do not merit separate articles and should be covered in the station's main article" that is far from the nominator's claim that they should "never" get separate articles. This is a separately programming station with unique local programming, not merely a repeater for one of the national programming services. (Also, WP:BROADCAST is merely an essay, not a guideline.) That said, the article is unreferenced, but that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion, since it's apparent that sources are available. An interested editor should add some of them to this article. - Dravecky ( talk) 19:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Needing clarification of the notability of television station subchannels discussion has shown that Neutralhomer has misinterpreted WP:BROADCAST and the notability rule. Spshu ( talk) 20:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The image Image:Wnem dt2 mntv.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 06:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Why eliminate cleanup or refimprove tags on an article with as divisive talk as this one has? Those tags are there to alert other contributors who may have access to sources and non-original research to improve this article. Its redundant and has no sourcing and requires housekeeping to justify its credibility on Wikipedia. Please don't make edits only to justify a position these tags are to help keep Wikipedia credible. BTW how unfortunate to see one of the five pilars of Wikipedia almost ignored in that archived talk right from the start with that Make up your mind comment. Good Grief 173.121.255.204 ( talk) 05:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article should be deleted and its information added as a subcatagory to the WNEM-TV page. This is not a seperate entity from WNEM-TV and the subject does not posses any relevance to merit its own seperate page. It has the same physical address, broadcasts at the same frequency, the same owner and has the same personnel as WNEM-TV. This is not like WNEM AM which is a different medium, broadcasting on a diffrent frequency with its own seperate license and history. This article is also written without a single citation, unverifiable and contains non-encyclopedic language. -Wxyzdan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.98.10.49 ( talk) 01:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
As said above...
This article should be deleted and its information added as a subcatagory to the WNEM-TV page.
Its the same entity not something seperate. The reason for deletion should fall under the Wikipedia guideline as a redundant or useless templet. Nearly all of the information on this page is redundent to the WNEM-TV page. The text about WNEM's programming on 5.2 and its cable coverage should be included on the WNEM-TV article. This article also does not site any sources to its information.
Support This is dumb, this is the same TV station. None of the other stations on here have seperate pages for there subchannels. This should be deleted. There'd be tons of extra articles out there if we had one for every subchannel. 70.8.99.167 ( talk) 04:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Strong and Speedy Oppose: - Technically it is in the right place. WNEM-TV is a CBS affiliate, while WNEM-DT2 (it's actual callsign) is a MyNetworkTV affiliate. They are two seperate stations, but operating on the same station via digital subchannels. This is the MOS and WP:TVS way of doing things. So, they should not be merged. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Spshu ( talk) 13:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose deletion While the broadcast notability essay does say "television subchannels generally do not merit separate articles and should be covered in the station's main article" that is far from the nominator's claim that they should "never" get separate articles. This is a separately programming station with unique local programming, not merely a repeater for one of the national programming services. (Also, WP:BROADCAST is merely an essay, not a guideline.) That said, the article is unreferenced, but that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion, since it's apparent that sources are available. An interested editor should add some of them to this article. - Dravecky ( talk) 19:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Needing clarification of the notability of television station subchannels discussion has shown that Neutralhomer has misinterpreted WP:BROADCAST and the notability rule. Spshu ( talk) 20:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)