Deletion of Liquidation Channel

Comment: Television channels are presumed notable according to , and  is not a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BROADCAST||WP:COI)

Comment: This is a very low-notability shopping channel, but this version of the article can't be rescued. Should be focused on the channel's history, not how many mines it leases products from and its shipping policies. Sadly, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liquidation_Channel&diff=408118721&oldid=407220445 this version of the article from 2011 is the most neutral version that can be found. Finally, every edit since May 2014 looks like it's been made by a walled garden of possible  accounts that's gone unnoticed since most  editors usually don't edit shopping/infomercial channel articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:TV)

Comment: I would remind folks that  isn't a policy.  It isn't even a guideline.  It is an essay.  While essays are often useful, and I don't doubt that most of the time this essay is, at the end of the day, we assume nothing, including notability.  In this case, we have a minor channel that is literally one big commercial.  This is the type of channel that cables companies don't have to pay for, the channel pays the cable companies to be included.  Short of rock solid references, that fact lets us apply , which trumps all policies, and say that without proper references, we can't say it passes our criteria for inclusion.  I'm guessing, and hoping, that this will get relisted so more eyes can look at it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BROADCAST||WP:COMMONSENSE)