Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel drift

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Channel drift

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

Synthesis. Only one of the sources uses the term "channel drift". Nothing but an arbitrary list of channels that have changed focus. Inappropriate tone (we should have a bot that blocks "ironically" from article space). Most of the sourced content is from opinion pieces. And there should be no reason to link to TV Tropes except in its own article. Previously, inexplicably, kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network decay in 2009. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be an established name for it, but this doesn't necessarily mean that there shouldn't be an article, as many articles have descriptive titles (including several featured articles). Original research and synthesis is a possible problem in articles such as this, and there is probably some in the article, but 3 of the 4 inline sources provide examples, and use of opinion pieces isn't inappropriate, if the opinions are notable enough. Peter E. James (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a particular type of rebranding and so the worst case is that we'd merge into that article or some article about TV. The distribution of TV is still evolving rapidly and it's not clear what will happen to networks and channels when everything is available on demand. Because of such change, topics such as cable network are poor and it's best for us to keep these various imperfect attempts and merge them together as and when the technology settles down and we have some historical perspective. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The use of Channel Drift is a reoccurring problem in media, giving it certain social notoriety; several channels have lived and died in the past due to this ... effect ... this ('whatever the opposite is of 'back by popular demand'). Especially as new "google TV"-style services come of age, this will have a certain utility. A look at past cases would be helpful to those who want to understand where this had gone so wrong previously. This information, at least, is important; 'Those who don't learn from history are due to repeat it.' Sim (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic, though I do not think there is an agreed term for the phenomena.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 February 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.