Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyewitness News


 * 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   keep. v/r - TP 02:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Eyewitness News

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Drive-by tagged for cleanup for 3 years. Concerns over original research and synthesis — this isn't a unified "brand", just a name shared by many news networks. Compare NewsChannel, which was nominated for the same reason. The sources may verify that the various news programs use the name "Eyewitness News", but since none of the sources show a correlation among the many "Eyewitness News" programs, the article is inherently OR and synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There may well be parts of this article that are OR or unsourceable.  But there are dozens, or even hundreds, of reliable sources for the original development and influence of the "Eyewitness News" brand under the guidance of Al Primo. That's enough to demonstrate the notability of the topic; the rest is editing.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic. See this for starters. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the topic seems to be substantial and notable, there are some sources although I didn't really check them out. Mostly news media do not report on news media so this kind of article is always going to be difficult to get good sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Undecided. "Eyewitness News" is at least a famous name for local news programs, and news packages such as this have done reasonably well at AfD in the past. However, this article is almost completely unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I think that the nominator is correct. The fact that a number of different TV stations use the same generic name for their local newscasts is not, on its own terms, encyclopedic. The lack of appropriate sourcing doesn't help. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Click the Google book search please. News is people: the rise of local TV news and the fall of news from New York By Craig Allen chapter 6 explains it all quite well.  Encyclopedia of television news By Michael D. Murray page 73, explains it also calling it a "particular style of television newscast." And explaining "It was very significant because it humanized the news and diverted from the more strict and traditional "man-on-camera" newscast seen on the network level."   D r e a m Focus  12:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos. Jheald (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Eyewitness News was not just a random assortment of local newscasts that happened to share a name, it was a specific format of new programming that was introduced and used that these stations. Unfortunately not available for preview, but Journalism Quarterly covered it.  New York Magazine notes how the format gained some traction for ABC.  The Encyclopedia of Television has an extensive amount of information about this particular news format.  Managing Television News describes how the news format had reporters closest to the story appearing on camera to "take the viewer there".  This style of reporting is confirmed in Crime and Local Television News which states that the format "emphasized reporting from the scene of events and use of film and video". -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Definite keep as a notable format of news. The article suffers from OR and synthesis but this is not—as claimed by the nom—inherent to the subject (as shown by the sources provided above by DreamFocus and Whpq) and therefore it is not a valid argument for deletion.— CharlieEchoTango  — 05:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'll never understand the rush to delete non-controversial wiki topics (short of a copyright infringement) based on claims of substandard content or sourcing. I went to the page because I was interested, and I found what I needed to know. It should remain in place until someone decides to provide something better. AlvinVoider (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.