Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friday night death slot

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The result was withdrawn. No consensus to delete. (Wikipedia:Non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friday night death slot

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

This article has OR materials. I don't know how "Friday night death slot" is encyclopedic, but the title is too biased ("death" sounds negative), the content may favor against Friday nights by using shows as examples of successes or failures (even if tone may be NPOV), it looked like an essay... or something personal, and cleaning up this article is too nauseating for me.

I don't know how notable it is, but even finding positive views about Friday night television won't help matters because... there's "death" in the title. I tried to request a rename, but there was no consensus to move. Imagine "Saturday night death slot"... *shudders*

I don't know why notable it is, but there were too many examples. "Success" and "failure" are too biased... I'm running out of words to explain this messy, biased article with messy title, even when media commonly calls it this way... Wait... this article should mention cable, as well. Could cable kill Friday night broadcast or its own Friday night? George Ho (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The verbatim phrase "Friday night death slot" has been in use since at least the 1980s. One of the earlier edits had at least eleven citations attesting to the legitimacy of the phrase. Friday night has been a well-documented graveyard slot in American television, where series have had lower ratings and a higher rate of cancellation than other nights (except Saturday, which no longer has original programming). So, why not a "Saturday night death slot?" Simply because most networks don't program that night anymore; it's not where legitimate series die, it's where already dead series are burned off. As for cable, other than children's channels, most of them do movies on Friday nights. It may need some rewriting, but that doesn't make it necessary to erase the entire article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article provides good references for at least some of its content and appears to be about a notable concept in its field. Any OR problems can be solved by editing the article, rather than deleting. JulesH (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course "death" has negative connotations. Being squeamish about the name isn't a reason to delete the article. It's a well-known concept, not something made up by an editor. Barsoomian (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The word "death" does not make the article biased, as "Friday Night Death Slot" is the common term. Akihironihongo (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article could use more sourcing (though there's already plenty here, more than enough to satisfy WP:RS) but the term and the concept are widely covered topics about a phenomenon in American television that has been recognized since at least the late 1960s. The TV By the Numbers blog run by the Los Angeles Times offers plenty of statistics related to ratings and discussion of the Friday night issue. The use of the term "death" only makes the article biased if the creator of the article made up the term, but he/she didn't. Regarding Saturday night "death slot" the term didn't enter into used, and in fact do the research and you'll see some puzzlement as to why the networks abandoned Saturday as opposed to Friday which was expected for years. 23skidoo (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 23skidoo. Googling Friday death slot reveals 20,500,000 results, including various articles and books. Ruby 2010/2013 17:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I could not find a reliable scholarly journal about this: [1]. Search term "`Friday night' television" may help, but I don't know. Presses may refer them as "Friday night death slot", yet I could not call them reliable per WP:NPOV. Per essays WP:AADD and WP:POPULARITY, arguments, even goods ones, won't help me change my views because... I don't see Friday night as a "doom", and putting examples into this article won't help, unless the titled term itself and examplified shows are mentioned in ~~the same article~~ a same/similar source. Why would both Cheers' Sam and Diane and this article's topic be popular, yet my "revision" Sam and Diane may appear something that is opposed to the other? --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a matter of neutrality to you, perhaps you should take it to the article's talk page per WP:NPOV rather than putting it up on AfD? Akihironihongo (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted initially, but... well, can I bring this issue simultaneously or after the AFD? If not, then can I remove many unsourced examples and then withdraw this AFD if removal of examples is approved? --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with graveyard slot. illogical pie (take a slice) 18:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Possible, but the targeted article needs sources. I don't know if I want to do that, but we'll see... --George Ho (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable for American television. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term itself is notable and well referenced (though a lot of the rest of the article is not). We don't want to merge it in to graveyard slot because there's a great level of detail in the former, that would not be appropriate in the latter. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- And after re-reading the nomination statement I'm even more confused than ever. I can't understand why we would object to an article title as "bias," when the article is titled as the name of the subject. The Gay Nigger Association of America doesn't have the nicest name that I can think of, but I don't think anyone would suggest moving it to Cute and Fuzzy Bunny Rabbits of America just because we don't like the name. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The GNAA is an official title, isn't it? I don't think "Friday night death slot" is an official title already. Also, I won't be able to inspect these offline sources because I'm not sure if they are either online or print. Current MLA format requires a medium, such as Print, DVD, Television, or Web, and, if Web, a database that contains a material. Citation Wiki templates... I'd go for simple typing rather than template-making. --George Ho (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the official title, then? Akihironihongo (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one. This title is common and accepted per WP:COMMONNAME, right? Still, I read the content, and, aside from sections, the lead looks neutral and sourced. ...If removal of all sections with an exception of lead are approved, may I withdraw nomination? If not, then why withdrawing, anyways, other than "no consensus to delete"? --George Ho (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sigh. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:42, 8 February 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.