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. I don't think there's going to be any agreement on this, after several resists some think the article should be kept, others think it should be deleted.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
You can do a news search for the names of any of the channels and the word "pornography". Also since its a navigation list, not needed to reference things that are referenced in the articles linked to or common sense. The first entry is AOV Adult Movie Channel, so that's in the actual name. But search for it with the word "pornography" and you find coverage easily.
[1]DreamFocus12:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete With the wind-down of pay-per-view on cable/satellite, many of these networks are defunct and no longer active, and I wish you (and your anti-virus program) good luck trying to find sources for all of these; most of the properties have long transferred to the Internet. This is a declining list better as a category. Nate•(
chatter)19:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete – I agree that the list would be better as a category. The already existing
Category:Television pornography seems like it already duplicates most of the entries – I'd be all for categorizing each entry in the current list that isn't already in the category under it.
Tollens (
talk)
10:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
That would be perfectly fine – it's simply that a list of links is exactly what a category is for. If you'd like to expand the article with additional information, by all means go ahead.
Tollens (
talk)
04:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. A category and a list on one given subject matter are partially, not exactly, the same. Not only does the category here duplicates only most of the entries (i.e. not all), but the list allows to organise links in sections, add sources and comments, which seems indeed necessary for the page. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)10:59, 6 November 2023 (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.
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. I don't think there's going to be any agreement on this, after several resists some think the article should be kept, others think it should be deleted.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
You can do a news search for the names of any of the channels and the word "pornography". Also since its a navigation list, not needed to reference things that are referenced in the articles linked to or common sense. The first entry is AOV Adult Movie Channel, so that's in the actual name. But search for it with the word "pornography" and you find coverage easily.
[1]DreamFocus12:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete With the wind-down of pay-per-view on cable/satellite, many of these networks are defunct and no longer active, and I wish you (and your anti-virus program) good luck trying to find sources for all of these; most of the properties have long transferred to the Internet. This is a declining list better as a category. Nate•(
chatter)19:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete – I agree that the list would be better as a category. The already existing
Category:Television pornography seems like it already duplicates most of the entries – I'd be all for categorizing each entry in the current list that isn't already in the category under it.
Tollens (
talk)
10:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)reply
That would be perfectly fine – it's simply that a list of links is exactly what a category is for. If you'd like to expand the article with additional information, by all means go ahead.
Tollens (
talk)
04:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. A category and a list on one given subject matter are partially, not exactly, the same. Not only does the category here duplicates only most of the entries (i.e. not all), but the list allows to organise links in sections, add sources and comments, which seems indeed necessary for the page. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)10:59, 6 November 2023 (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.