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 merge to NBC. This is a bit of an WP:IAR close, as there were very few bolded merge/redirect votes. However, many voters on both sides expressed that merging this content to the NBC (or KNBC) article would be an acceptable outcome. Consensus seems to be that this was a brief promotional experiment that got some coverage, but there may not be enough to say about it for its own standalone article. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 17:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Time Begins at 7:30 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Non-notable subject. Freshh (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 21 September 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This sounds like a complete hoax; NBC produced or distributed none of these sitcoms at all and most stations aired them during the weekend at times other than 7:30pm, and I've never heard of this block or branding to begin with. Sounds like a localized branding for a bunch of shows that are completely unrelated besides being syndicated sitcoms in 1987. Also, the Prime Time Access Rule would have prohibited NBC from this kind of scheduling in the first place, even for stations they owned. Nate • (chatter) 02:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't just decide what it "sounds like", particularly not when there are actually sources in the article (albeit in the external links section) and it's easy enough to google the phrase. Between this, this, and this, it's not only clear that it's no hoax, but that it also received significant media attention at the time. So what lesson have you learned from this about best practice at AFD? postdlf (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Alright, I'm taking back the first part of that, but I stand by my comments that this is hardly a notable "block" of sitcoms, because in the rest of the United States most stations didn't follow this scheduling (notwithstanding the error of the NY Times source that identified WABC-TV as an NBC O&O, adding more confusion). Only 20% of the country knew this block solely as a promotional branding by an NBC O&O piped in from New York; the rest saw these shows at much different times, or in some cases, didn't get the shows at all. This isn't even close to having the bare notability the Prime Time Entertainment Network did. Nate • (chatter) 11:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete As noted, this was an advertising campaign limited to the NBC O&O's, and it only lasted one season. No notability. JTRH (talk) 23:09, 29 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to KNBC. This appears to have been a local experiment as two of the shows were carried over to regular NBC programming after the end of the experiment at other times, and was covered by the Los Angeles Times[1] but it does not seem to be notable in itself. Plausible search term for someone who actually knows about this block of programing and the information can be added to the KNBC section. Redfarmer (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction: there was coverage in the New York Times as well that seems to indicate this was tried in five major markets.[2] As such, it does seem like a national NBC experiment and, as such, I change my vote to Redirect and merge to NBC. Redfarmer (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't a "national" NBC experiment, it was in the five markets where they owned stations at the time. It might be worthy of one sentence in the NBC article. JTRH (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was an experiment in five markets (which I acknowledged already) all over the United States which was covered by at least two major newspapers. Redirects are cheap and a paragraph in the NBC article can cover it. None of this is unreasonable and you acknowledge yourself there might be something suitable for the NBC article. Redfarmer (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was just saying that five markets do not constitute a "national" experiment. JTRH (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem with this is that it was an experiment solely by NBC stations, and none of the programs were owned by NBC themselves, but hashed together from a bunch of producers and called a block. There were countless examples of individual stations and station groups creating 'theme brandings' of their shows in the 80's and 90's to make promotion easier, and again, as I said above, I never knew Out of this World to air on a weeknight; it came on at 4:00pm on WVTV Saturdays or 6:30pm Saturday on WXGZ in Appleton for me. Where could it be redirected to in the NBC article? The network didn't own the shows, it was only a year-long experiment, and only two of the five shows got a second season. Redirection doesn't make any sense. Nate • (chatter) 05:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think there is enough information for tight article. Newsday July 29, 1987 had about three sentences of info. New York Times August 11, 1987 is significant coverage and a good source for detailed information. Associated Press September 11, 1987 has a sentence of information. Los Angeles Times September 14, 1987 is another significant coverage article. Los Angeles Times January 14, 1988 has a sentence or two worth of information. I like the topic since the promotion said Prime Time Begins at 7:30 and NBC president Brandon Tartikoff "made it clear NBC itself is not starting its threehour prime-time schedule before 8 o'clock." If the article is kept/no consensused, let me know and I'll be happy to revise the article with the above source material. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability is permanent, and it is clear that this promotional campaign did get plenty of coverage at the time from significant outlets, independent of NBC. The relative uniqueness of this campaign, as well as the fact that it was an effect of the loosening of the Prime Time Access Rule also gives it more lasting cultural significance than other promotions of a similar nature. --Tdl1060 (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to finally say an express keep based on my comments above and the sources found. The main deletion !voter has been from the beginning operating from his assumptions and personal knowledge of the topic rather than any research. At most, this is a merge candidate to the NBC main article, but that should be just dealt with by normal editing rather than ramrodded through by this AFD. postdlf (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: I think the New York Times article cited by Uzma Gamal constitutes significant coverage in a reliable secondary source; a large part of the article is about the 7:30 lineup. Having said that, I think much of the coverage in the other sources amounts to WP:ROUTINE, since changes in scheduling and marketing promotions on TV pretty much require reporters in major markets to take notice, even if they aren't all that notable. A lot of this is lighthearted reviews, which don't necessarily establish notability. My own common sense favors a redirect to NBC or deletion, given the short duration of this campaign, but I think the NYT article, along with the other less significant coverage, gets it past WP:GNG and thus we must keep. --Batard0 (talk) 13:11, 18 October 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.