Talk:CBS Mandate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article makes no sense and I'll mark for deletion. If it's a mandate than it would have to be OBEYED by all station. Because it isn't obeyed than at best it is a "Strong Suggestion," therefore is not an encyclopedia article and should be removed. Since when are private business "suggestions," encylopedia worthy? 4.142.66.146 00:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)nick
Even though I've edited the article with additional information, I still have some issues with it. First of all, is the CBS Mandate even notable at all, other than to TV branding junkies (which I admit to being one)? I don't know about the situation in Pittsburgh, but I imagine the average viewer doesn't really give a damn as to what a TV station calls itself.
Besides, CBS/UPN aren't the only networks doing it. Fox, NBC and ABC all do it, and I think it was actually Fox that started this branding practice in the first place. Should we have articles on branding practices for those networks too? - Hinto 04:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I found it interesting. Would be nice to have a page for each network explaining what the branding package consists of and what stations are "clones." —A 08:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you actually cited some references. Otherwise, it just seems like a unnecessary fork of Owned and operated station#Branding Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AfD discussion
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CBS_Mandate (aeropagitica) 19:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Serious problems with this article
After reading the article, I still have no idea why it's being called a Mandate. There appears to be no reference to that word being used in any context, much less used as a proper name warranting the capital letter. In fact, there's no proof anywhere that this is even part of the O&O agreements or that it was part of a coordinated effort. While exceptions are noted, there is no reason for most of them given or explanation of how they fit into the "mandate." Since it lacks any kind of citations, it reads like Original Research documenting a trend of unproven origin. Citations proving such an edict exists, please, or I may put this up for AfD again. 24.4.253.249 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

