Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloria.tv


 * 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. There are some difficulties in determining notability because of a language barrier in sources cited in the German version of the article. The number of sources and the fact that they appear to be reliable sources turns the discussion toward a conclusion of "keep." Joyous! | Talk 15:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Gloria.tv

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Reesorville with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD), behavior I'd usually associate with spammer accounts. In either case, this fails GNG as outlined above, and also as I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't know I was supposed to reply at this page. I wrote in the talk section of the page, because I don't know where else to write. I am not familiar with Wikipedia's rules. Gloria.tv has a large daily following and it already has wikipedia articles on it in both German and Italian, that are linked to the article. Reesorville (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see your talk page message. I did ask in the prod to be WP:ECHOed, and since you didn't notify me of your reply, I never saw it. Since you are not familiar with rules, you should check the ones I listed above and in the prod, namely WP:NCOMPANY. Also, given the article is unreferenced, you need to show sources supporting your claims about the website's popularity. See WP:V, WP:CITE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I just listed a source from the website itself with some statistics. In terms of notability though, I recommend that you look at the German page on wikipedia for gloria.tv and note all the mentions of the website in various articles in the German media. Reesorville (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, looks promising (major newspaper) but my German is too poor to judge. Are there no reliable English refs you could add? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note that sources do not have to be in English to qualify toward establishing notability. At WP:GNG it states, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". North America1000 08:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I haven't read all the references in the German article - and some are dead links - but these are WP:RS and are specifically about gloria.tv, which IMO clearly passes WP:GNG. The quotes are from the headlines or opening paragraphs.
 * 1) Fundamentalistisches Portal "gloria.tv" - Süddeutsche Zeitung (Germany)
 * 2) Jetzt ermittelt die Bündner Kantonspolizei wegen gloria.tv - Die Südostschweiz (Switzerland)
 * 3) Kath.net, kreuz.net und gloria.tv haben sehr klare Vorstellungen davon, was katholisch ist - Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Germany)
 * 4) Schweiz: Gloria.tv Mitarbeiter vom Bischof entlassen - Vatican Radio (The Vatican)
 * And that's just for starters, there are other major news organisations cited in the German article. Narky Blert (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen articles about the website in major English-language press, although it can be found mentioned in the 'Catholic blogosphere'. In addition to the German-language press, it has also had statements regarding it from various bishops' conferences, I think. I am not completely familiar with the controversy surrounding the site, but it is written in detail on the german page (I just used the online translator to try to figure out what it said). Part of the controversy seems to be something about the site having used Nazi imagery in reference to the German bishops at some point which ran afoul of laws in certain countries, which in turn brought in the police and condemnation from various corners. Reesorville (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the German wikipedia article makes it clear that this is notable, quite controversial, and well-covered in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:30, 2 December 2016 (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.