Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheer Channel Inc.

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 redirect to Cindy Villarreal. MBisanz ^talk 16:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheer Channel Inc.

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

Sending here after a declined speedy deletion. The subject doesn't appear sufficiently notable to pass WP:GNG but I could, of course, be mistaken. §everal⇒|Times 02:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the creator of this article, and you make a valid point. However, I do believe the subject is notable. Cheerleading is an extremely fast growing sport Cheerleading Changes, and Injuries Increase, and Cheer Channel, Inc is the only network available for tween, teens, and others interested in Cheerleading to stay up to date with news and enjoy original dramas. With pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Brands, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheerleading are notable Wikipedia topics, I feel this article should not be deleted, but rather improved on with more sources and content (which I, and I hope other interested editors, intend to do). Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samb092012 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is not whether cheerleading is notable, but whether this network is notable. The other pages are notable because they pass the general notability requirement. My concern is that this particular subject does not pass such a requirement, despite how popular related subjects might be. §everal⇒|Times 01:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The network is notable because it has been featured in several articles and its content has gained wide following. Agreed with the user below, just google the term "Cheer Channel" and several sources appear. I am in the process of editing and adding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samb092012 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lots of good secondary sources pop up once you remove the term "Inc" from the search parameters. See here (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing many good secondary sources. There is this one about an attempt to set a world record. It's a good source, but all the other independent sources I can find are very local and refer to the same event. The sources currently referenced on the page are all directly related to Cheer Channel and/or are press releases (I'm not sure about the About.com one - it seems like a press release but may not be). §everal⇒|Times 22:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support a merge to Cindy Villarreal. §everal⇒|Times 22:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete questionable notability and highly advertising-ish, e.g. "highly distinguished broadcasting and production team". If kept it will need to be rewritten from scratch as an actual encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge to the Cindy Villarreal article.. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 01:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The site itself appears to be insignificant per Alexa (global rank of 727,085); the tenor of the article appears highly promotional in nature. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I maintain my 'delete' vote after having just had a look at the Villarreal biography. There, I notice it already contained an excess of non-biographical material, mainly on the channel and cheerleading in general that I think a merger should not be envisaged. Best case, I would redirect. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 04:08, 28 November 2012 (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.