Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loma Linda Broadcasting Network


 * 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   no consensus. There is some disagreement about whether the provided sourcing is of broad enough regional scope to support notability, but there is nothing here that makes this a consensus. The sourcing is at least capable to satisfy verifiability requirements, so there is no policy that mandates a deletion in the absence of consensus either. Sjakkalle (Check!)  20:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Loma Linda Broadcasting Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable. I found no significant coverage in reliable sources. Article has been heavily edited by a COI editor and most sourcing used is weak and not reliable. Essentially an advertisement. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 01:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is key network of the Seventh-day Adventist Church's flagship  medical and educational institution of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, as well as valuable programing reaching across the globe. Simbagraphix (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:FARAWAY. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 15:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  03:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * delete a complete lack of third party coverage. 2 gnews hits says it all LibStar (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * DElete -- This is essentially a TV franchising operation by a church. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I've had a look around and I have found some refs that seem to support it being notable. Sadly some the refs that are currently used to support the article don't appear to be satisfactory. That means more work! Not sure I really want to spend time to save this one. I do think it should stay but it needs more work. Perhaps the observation about the COI editor is true. That doesn't make it less notable. So I hope someone else comes in and helps to improve.I will add that there are 206,514 Adventists in In California, which means a healthy viewing audience in the state alone. There is a regular references to the network and related info in various books and magazines etc Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BIG, WP:MUSTBESOURCES Regards, James(talk/contribs) 15:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - The network is syndicated and seen wider than just in the state . Karl Twist (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  17:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to Draft at best if no immediately better improvements are available as my searches found noticeably better than a few links thus nothing convincingly better to keep yet. SwisterTwister   talk  03:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The article notes: The Loma Linda Broadcasting Network started 10 years ago as the brainchild of four residents with technical backgrounds and a common vision -- a voice to share the primarily Seventh-day Adventist community's spiritual and health message with the rest of the world. They received an outpouring of community support -- each volunteer and supporter with their own vision -- until the network came together as one. After gaining their 501(c)(3) status as an official nonprofit organization providing an hour of programming to the community, they shot their shows for almost a decade from borrowed rooms in local churches and various locations throughout Loma Linda University. The network now provides 14 programs weekly, spanning 65 hours of renewed programming a week, which is replayed to correspond with the varying time zones throughout North, Central and South America, via satellite. Ten years later, it seemed appropriate for them to have a place to call home. On July 8, the network celebrated its 10th year with the opening of its new 3,000-square-foot facility at Mayberry and Main streets in Bryn Mawr. It is a symbol of achievement for several hundred volunteers, who dedicated their weekends and evenings over the past 17 months to build the network headquarters, which features five sound stages, and control, editing, green and viewing rooms.   The article notes: "The Loma Linda Broadcasting Network was on the air from its studio in the Bryn Mawr neighborhood when a pager carried by one of its technicians went off. It was a text message from an alarmed viewer who had lost the signal. In Iran. 'We thought he was joking,' recalled the station's president and CEO, Ganim Hanna. 'We ran to the control room and sure enough, the Internet stream had been interrupted. We reactivated it.' The television station, situated in a former citrus-packing house, has grown from a tiny, one-room operation that could accommodate only 10 viewers at a time a decade ago to a worldwide network that soon will be available to more than 1.5 billion people in 194 countries.  Its budget has gone from the red - 'At first we had to pay for everything out of our own pockets,' Hanna says - to $1.2 million a year. The money comes from viewer contributions, many of them unsolicited, in return for 24-hour-a-day health and science programs laced with generous doses of Christian messages."  The article notes: "He developed an interest in media when he was attending Loma Linda Academy and participated with other students in radio productions at the Loma Linda Campus Hill Church's radio station. In the '70s, with Dr. Roland Zimmerman, he determined to transmit Loma Linda University Church events to patients' rooms in the LLU Medical Center. He raised funds, purchased cameras and learned television production skills for the project. The effort has grown to become a 24-hour operation at Loma Linda Broadcasting Network, where he was serving as chair of the board, moderator on several programs, and presenter on a devotional 'One-to-One' weekly television show."  The article notes: "LOMA LINDA - When Ganim Hannah had the idea to start a Christian television station six years ago, he couldn't imagine it would grow to reach a potential audience of millions. But it has. The Loma Linda Broadcasting Network, a nonprofit entity run entirely by volunteers, has recently switched to a 24-hour-a day, seven-day-a-week schedule and is now beaming its signal via satellite, extending its reach to an internatinoal audience. 'This is a true ministry for the people, by the people,' said Hannah, 45, president and chief executive officer of the network.  Prompted by the lack of family programming and negative images on cable and network television, Hannah began to explore the idea of starting an independent Christian network.  In 1997, the Loma Linda resident founded Loma Linda Broadcasting Network, or LLBN.  Hannah designed the network to provide viewers with a positive alternative to current programming, with an emphasis on faith and healthy living."</li> <li> The article notes: "BRYN MAWR - A decade ago, Loma Linda Broadcasting Network's first show aired for an hour on a local cable channel. Since then, the network has grown to include broadcasts in North, South and Central America and live broadcasts in the internet. This summer, the network will be seen worldwide via satellite. A dedication service of for the network's building this Sunday will also mark that milestone along with the network's anniversary."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Loma Linda Broadcasting Network to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC) </li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I thank Cunard for digging up these articles; unfortunately, they fail WP:AUD. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 06:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, source #3 fails WP:SIGCOV. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 06:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability (organizations and companies) says (my bolding): "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The Press-Enterprise is a regional newspaper. It serves the Inland Empire, a region in Southern California. The San Bernardino Sun is also a regional newspaper; it "serves most of the Inland Empire in Southern California. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Los Angeles/Orange Counties to the west, east to the Arizona State line, north to the Imperial County line, and south to the Riverside City line." Therefore, Loma Linda Broadcasting Network meets Notability (organizations and companies). Cunard (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Redlands paper is clearly eliminated by WP:AUD (which, I think, you have implicitly admitted by not including it in your comment). That leaves us with the P-E and the Sun. Let's take a look at that guideline again:
 * attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media *** is not an indication of notability
 * Both the P-E and the Sun clearly fit the criteria of local media. Their circulation is limited to the Inland Empire, a metropolitan area in Southern California. "Regional" in the context of the guideline refers to regions larger than one metropolitan area. With the three remaining sources failed, there is no more argument that the topic is notable. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 07:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I noted at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) where I have mentioned your comment here, I have reverted an 9 October 2015 edit to the guideline that changed it from: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, national, or international source is necessary." to: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional (meaning statewide, provincial), national, or international source is necessary." I don't see a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 15 and Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 15 to make the changes to bar metropolitan area newspapers and all trade journals from establishing notability. I consider metropolitan area newspapers like The Press-Enterprise and The San Bernardino Sun to be regional newspapers because they serve the Inland Empire, a region in Southern California. It should not be necessary for a metropolitan area newspaper to have to serve more than one region to be considered a regional newspaper. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While the P-E and the Sun may claim to serve a large area, most of the "Inland Empire", as they define it, is uninhabited desert. In reality, they cover Riverside and San Bernardino respectively, both medium-sized suburbs of Los Angeles. I agree that "regional" papers should not be outright barred, however, I do not believe the specific ones under discussion are examples of "regional" papers that would establish notability on their own. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 21:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Inland Empire says based on the source http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metro_general/2006/CBSA-EST2006-02.csv: "The U.S. Census Bureau-defined Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metropolitan area, which comprises Riverside County and San Bernardino County, California, covers more than 27,000 square miles (70,000 km2) and has a population of approximately 4 million." I consider a newspaper that covers this area and population to be a regional newspaper. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, good info there Cunard. There's some proof in there that the Loma Linda Broadcasting Network is notable to have an article here. Also I'd like to add that there is an audience that is wider than the state. Adventists in other states access the network. I'm standing by my vote to keep the article as well. Also more work needs to be done on the article. It can be kept here and with others participation improved over time. Karl Twist (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "It has a large audience" or "It can be improved" are irrelevant to notability. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As you'll see a few sections down, the boundaries and definitions of the so-called region are amorphous and poorly defined, due to the large parts of the MSA that are unpopulated desert. I maintain that the papers you are citing do not meet the WP:AUD threshold. The language you cite from their self-description is promotional puffery. In reality, they are local papers. Assuming arguendo that they do, however, three local newspaper articles do not meet the general notability threshold in this case. It seems to me that this discussion is going in circles, so we will just have to agree to disagree. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cunard, enough references. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:45, 6 April 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.