Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language of Business (TV program)


 * 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.

I'm very disappointed in this decision since I've reached out to Wikipedia itself and editors multiple times. Whom can I further discuss this with, please? Gstoller (talk

The result was delete. To the various people arguing to keep this, please understand that we appreciate the efforts of new editors, but at the same time, we have standards that we have to enforce. Please read WP:GNG to learn more about what we consider appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Language of Business (TV program)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a local TV program which does not meet notability requirements. A majority of the references don't specifically mention the program, and those that do are non-independent. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is also the sole work of two single-purpose editors with a possible COI. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why should a local TV program not be notable enough? There are references from overseas and in different publications. Seems like you're being too stringent here, especially since most people are volunteers. I'm a new user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaBoston (talk • contribs) 11:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)  — EmmaBoston (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I watch this show every week and began watching them when they were a local production. I don't know anyone who runs or produces the show. Why can't a local show be notable enough? I think it's great they've grown large enough to be included on Wikipedia. Why deprive them of that? I remember when they first published you told them they were too promotional. They fixed that and now you're still complaining? Let them do their thing, please. I'm a MA resident and we need more original local content. I will try making changes you've requested now to help them out.

I'm from NH and watch this show all the time. I'm taking summer classes at Babson. NO connection with anything except being a loyal viewer. They do a good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.48.255.190 (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  19:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  19:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: From what I can tell, Articles for deletion/The Language of Business (TV Series) is an earlier AfD for an article about this same program, but under a different article title. The earlier article had sourcing concerns similar to this article (no significant coverage in reliable sources; many of the references in the article don't actually mention the show) — and significant coverage in reliable sources is necessary to meet the general notability guideline, even for television programs. It seems likely that if this article is deleted, it will probably be recreated yet again at this or another title (as it is, this article was created just days after the earlier AfD closed), which might require a dose of salt at some point. -- WC  Quidditch  &#9742;   &#9998;  20:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like there were two previous deletions at AFD, so I have noted them at the top of this nomination. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia user but have stayed out of this debate, to avoid any COI. Would it be possible, please, to set up a private chat or phone call with someone so I can properly clean up this page? I'm a novice Wikipedia user and simply trying to do the right thing, following all Wikipedia standards and general business ethics. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstoller (talk • contribs) 13:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I just corresponded with someone from the Wikipedia support team directly. He has clarified the policies so now I understand them. Please do not delete this page so we can find time to rectify the issues above. We're all trying to do the right thing. Gstoller (talk • contribs) 13:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - promotional. I don't think any improvements Gstoller can make will save this article, and encourage him to not waste his time trying. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - factual. In this messed up world where so many people are trying to b/s their way through life, gstoller contacted Wikipedia to try and do the right thing. How many times do you see people do that? I'll trim down article to make more factual. Also, I called WBIN and this show doesn't even run its own ads. What would they get being promotional? Also, I've found that show has ratings and was featured as part of published audit on social media effectiveness. EmmaBoston (talk) 5:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Needing to trim the article to what is factual isn't really the issue here. Whether or not the subject of this article meets Wikipedia notability requirements for inclusion is the purpose of this discussion.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

With some due diligence today I have found out that after our Chinese episode aired on 3/2/17 it was independently reviewed by 2 Chinese journalists. I'll try to find a copy of their pieces, even if in Chinese. According to my correspondence with Wikipedia this should suffice. Wikipedia wrote yesterday: "properly independent coverage - e.g. a newspaper reporter deciding to write a reasonably in-depth article about the programme, or a few reviews of it in magazines." Gstoller (talk 16:17, 15 August 2017 (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.