Talk:WakuWaku Japan

I'm curious as to whether or not this channel is notable enough for an entry. It airs in several countries, yet there's very little actual coverage for this channel apart from its launch. Is that enough to assert notability for a channel? I don't want to nominate this for AfD if it would pass notability guidelines. I've posted at

• I'm going to ping the following people since I saw that they recently took place in TV channel related AfDs. @
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you for the ping, will have a look-see and will report back in just a bit! KDS4444^Talk 10:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had a quick look: the Hollywood Reporter is a very reliable source, and its article on WakuWaku, although brief, seems to be non-trivial. The article here on Wikipedia is fraught with English grammar errors, but it looks like it passes the notability test (and I say this as someone who is generally a deletionist). I would like to hear a counterargument from someone else, though, if possible. KDS4444^Talk 10:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's definitely why I wanted to ask a second opinion on this before going further - I admit that my outlook on this may be tinted by my interaction with the article's creator, so I don't want to make any deletion moves unless it's genuinely non-notable. The coverage is light, so that was one of the things that I was worried about the most and my biggest guess at notability mostly centered around it being offered in so many different places.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yeah, generally per
  refimprove}} rather than taking it to AFD. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sounds good - I'm glad to see that my instinct to wait was the correct one here. On a side note guys, what would your opinion be on listing the channel's shows? There was previously a huge list of shows that they re-broadcast, which I summarized. I left the list of original programming up. My thought with that was basically that they didn't create the re-broadcast material and weren't the first to show it - nor did they purchase the material, so it doesn't really seem like it's something that should be listed, especially given that some of the shows are the limited type, meaning that the series ran for a set number of episodes and stopped. Unless the channel would be showing the same material over and over again (not a good idea for any channel) they'd end up changing this up and it'd run the risk of being like a TV Guide or being outdated.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You're definitely right on that latter score. If there were a separate list of programs broadcast on this channel, like the ones that some (but far from all) other television channels or networks have, then that could list any program that it ever broadcast at all — but the channel's main article should only list programs for which they were the originating broadcaster (and even then, preferably only those for which they can be
  reliably sourced as the originating broadcaster.) Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I second that perspective: adding/ retaining a list of programs here isn't likely to be either useful or interesting, would add substantial "clutter" to the article, and would be contrary to the guidelines at
  WP:NOTAGUIDE. Leaving it out seems best. On an unrelated-yet-related note, I am now going to go ahead and close this RfC with a conclusion of subject notability. Seems we have a pretty solid consensus. KDS4444^Talk 15:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]