Talk:WakuWaku Japan

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WakuWaku Japan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Television: Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Addition of Logo[edit]

Please add on WakuWaku Japan Channel Picture Logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.60.157.170 (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@42.60.157.170:

Done ~ NottNott talk|contrib 12:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Programming[edit]

I've removed the extremely long list of shows that the channel rebroadcasts. It's possible that these are just shows that are temporarily shown on the channel, especially since some of the shows like Amachan were limited series that only broadcast for a couple of episodes. This means that this list could be forever out of date as the channel re-broadcasts new shows and could also run the risk of running afoul of WP:TVGUIDE. I also note that other articles do not list everything that has ever aired on various TV channels and we predominantly have lists like List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon that list original programming or things that the channel bought the rights to, rather than just re-broadcasting shows. The reason for this is the same as above: the lists can very easily become forever incomplete, especially if the channel is repeatedly rebroadcasting new shows. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. KDS4444^Talk 10:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Notable?[edit]

This RfC was closed because consensus was reached regarding the apparent notability of the article's subject. KDS4444^Talk 16:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 WP:TELEVISION but received no response. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ping the following people since I saw that they recently took place in TV channel related AfDs. @KDS4444: @SwisterTwister: @Bearcat: @Alexf: @Cirt: Basically guys, I came across this via the article's creator, who had repeatedly tried to re-add an article deleted via AfD. While cleaning the article up I began questioning whether or not it'd be considered notable enough for an article. Normally the articles I deal with are topics that are decided by coverage, however I know that TV channels tend to fall within a slightly different category like schools. The main argument for this channel's notability is that it airs in several different countries, however that's about where it ends, as the coverage for this is fairly nonexistent. This might be because the channel is only a little more than a year old and it's possible that even if the channel isn't notable now, that it'll be notable in the future. I figured that I'd ask around a little bit rather than take this to AfD since I don't want to take something to AfD if I'm hesitant like this, since I don't want to waste the effort that an AfD would take up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, generally per WP:NMEDIA we accept a cable television channel as notable, at least in principle, if it broadcasts nationally or internationally. Of course that doesn't confer an inclusion freebie if the article is entirely unsourced and unsourceable — but if proper reliable sources are present then the article doesn't need to make any special claim of notability beyond the fact that it has distribution. One of the challenges, and one of the reasons we have NMEDIA to clarify points of notability for media outlets at all, is that because so many of the reliable sources we use for Wikipedia content are media outlets, sourcing a media outlet all the way up to WP:GNG very often gets T-boned by those same media outlets' reluctance in covering, and thereby helping to promote, their own "competition". (Newspapers will very rarely cover other newspapers, TV news bureaux will very rarely cover other TV news bureaux, radio stations will almost never cover other radio stations, and on and so forth.) Of course, the existence of that challenge doesn't give a media outlet an exemption from having to be sourced at all — it doesn't mean that media outlets go entirely uncovered as a rule, but just that the range of potential sources is attenuated somewhat compared to analogous topics that aren't competing in the "potential sources" pool. So as long as some RS coverage is present, we don't rush to delete an article about a media outlet just for not containing more RS coverage than it does — instead we give it the benefit of the doubt unless and until somebody does the research necessary to demonstrate that expanded coverage really is truly nonexistent (as e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Preview Channel). In this case, the level of referencing obviously isn't superb, but there's enough of it that my own reaction would be to flag it for further {{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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 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]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation requested for "closure" information[edit]

"The channel ceased operations on 31 March 2022 due to bankruptcy and losses."

Can the editors please put the "citation needed" tag on this information, as there was no information anywhere on the internet that says about "bankruptcy and losses" with WakuWaku Japan.

JMmelegrito (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]