Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MGM/UA Premiere Network

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 (although there is a consensus that the article still needs work). – bradv🍁 22:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MGM/UA Premiere Network

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

When it comes down to it, this is a completely non-notable article about a long-gone syndicated film package that any average viewer just thought was another film an independent television station was showing (and was shown as such in consumer TV listings without the article title's name being called out). Sourcing is limited to 'film is on TV station tonight' "what's on TV tonight" listings, WP:YOUTUBE-violating clips of promos, trade ads no consumer really saw in everyday life mixed in with some 'tonight on (TV station)' ads in newspapers, random things on eBay and 'I remember this' forum posts, and otherwise cherry-picked WP:ITSNOTABLE reaches. I already removed a list of stations that aired the films per WP:ELNO. Nate • (chatter) 03:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bare in mind, that the MGM/UA Premiere Network, was technically, an ad hoc television network. The article for Fourth television network even list it as such. How is a list of stations that carried the NETWORK any different that a list of stations that carries ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC? I again, stress that it was technically, a network, so you can't just say that a list of stations that are affiliated with a network isn't necessary. And wasn't exactly a "block" of programming like say, TGIF on ABC, Must See TV on NBC, Saturday morning cartoons, or SNICK on Nickelodeon. And you can't just presume that any average viewer just thought of it as just another film on independent TV because that isn't the point of the article. Just because you see it like that, doesn't mean that that's the exact truth. Nor can you presume that no consumer really saw trade ads and by default, consider them as "unreliable". Plus, since you want to bring up how there are aren't any notable articles, well, for once thing, the New York Times wrote about it back in 1984. It was also written about in great detail in the books Movies at Home: How Hollywood Came to Television and Hollywood and Broadcasting: From Radio to Cable. You clearly view things from the perspective that since you never heard of it and it's "old", then it shouldn't be an article on Wikipedia. BornonJune (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why should sources that has "this film is on TV station" tonight not be merited? A newspaper is technically, considered a reliable source isn't it? It clearly acknowledges, the existence of the MGM/UA Premiere Network even if it doesn't go into detail. And like I addressed with the New York Times article, it isn't the *only* newspaper reference of the Premiere Network. BornonJune (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way, if I used a newspaper article instead of a YouTube link as a source in regards to what TV stations carried the Premiere Network such as this in Minneapolis/St. Paul or this, which acknowledges WPIX in New York, KTLA in Los Angeles, and WGN in Chicago, would you still think that a list of stations on the Network, shouldn't be featured!? BornonJune (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If any average viewer just thought that the MGM/UA Premiere Network was another film an independent television station was showing, then why exactly was it promoted as airing under the MGM/UA Premiere Network instead of at random and without any branding or umbrella title to hold on to? Keep in mind that the whole point of the Premiere Network, was for MGM to have their films air on commercial, broadcast television for the very first time. Hence why it was called the Premiere Network. BornonJune (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Premiere Network, as explained in this Los Angeles Times article from 1989, also became the subject of controversy when the 1983 box office hit Wargames was aired as part of the package alongside decidedly "lesser" MGM titles. If that doesn't make it "notable" enough then I don't know what else is, to be honest with you. BornonJune (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: What's the point in deleting the list of stations that were affiliated with the MGM/UA Premiere Network if your intent is ultimately to have the entire article deleted? You can't have it both ways if you want to prove a point. I once again, stress that it was technically a TV network, not a programming block like Must See TV, SNICK, or TGIF. Adult Swim you could say, is a programming block for Cartoon Network, but is marketed as a separate network for ratings purposes, but that's another subject for another time. In the article concerning the Fourth television network, the section on the Premiere Network said that "it signed affiliation agreements with eight television stations in large markets. The service was expected to broadcast 24 movies in double-runs once a month for two years. MGM received 10½ minutes of advertising time within a two-hour movie telecast, while its stations would retain 11½ minutes. 100 television stations were signed as affiliates by October 1984, with the planned launch pushed back and set for November 10 of that year." BornonJune (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: I again must stress that seemingly (deliberately) overlook the fact that I provided reliable sources like newspaper articles such as the one from the New York Times. You simply focus on YouTube links and try to spin it by saying that Broadcasting magazine (which is as reliable as an industry source that you could find from that era), which is available to the free public (just Google it) doesn't fit as source. You continue to present your point of view from a decidedly subjective area with by saying to me previously, "This is information the layman in no way cares about." Who is this "layman" that you are referring too besides yourself? BornonJune (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - but you will have to remove all the links to copyright-violating scans of ads and listings from various publications, and vastly improve the quality of the surviving citations, as well as purging content based on non-reliable sources. You also need to be able to tell us what happened to this obviously-failed experiment, and source that information as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. There are sources already documented that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. That those sources make it clear that this was not "really" a network as NBC, CBS, and ABC were at the time of its launch is not an issue of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:16, 26 October 2020 (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.