Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NaSTA


 * 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. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

NaSTA


Informal group of Student television stations whose sole aim appears to be meeting up and giving each other awards. Delete. Ohconfucius 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: See nominations below for several other student radio stations which have little or dubious notability. In any event, student societies within the context of a given university are not usually notable per WP:ORG, and these stations are no different. Listed separately to avoid train wreck. Ohconfucius 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep with the addition of Ray Addison - Missvain 04:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How does he help the article? His sole potential claim to notability (not made in his article even) appears to be being chair of this society. Other than that, he's worked as a producer on a couple of minor tv shows. Bwithh 04:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, no assertion of notability. I don't see why this student television station needs an article here, stations like this are very ordinary. --Ter e nce Ong (C 08:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Have another read, this is not 'a' student TV station but a larger association of student TV stations. You give the impression of having completely misunderstood the (admittedly rather bad) article. Tomisaac 00:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * KeepIts an association similiar to RTC or BAFTA, i think this is notable as it is a major spawning ground of talent for the british film and television industry, particularly when every school in america has an article and i doubt this notable to anyone outside the US if that. this is notable within the UK. Capt Jack Doicy
 * But does it meet WP:ORG? From the other views expressed here, the answer is most likely no. MER-C 10:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See below. Plus, the decision that NaSTA is NN seems to have been based purely on the (quite poor) article itself. JMalky 15:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per WP:ORG and nn mutual admiration society.SkierRMH 09:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Most trade and industry associations (e.g. BAFTA) could be called 'mutual admiration societies', as you're unlikely to find such a body that exists to knock back and criticise it's membership...Tomisaac 00:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. MER-C 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Form all stations into one article, but don't delete. Almost every TV channel available in the UK is listed, just look at Propeller TV for an example. This should extend to student and community channels too, even if it only needs one entry for both of these categories. I also fear Capt Jack is correct when he says there's evidence of America-centric behaviour when it comes to Wikipedia, especially in what is allowed to stay and what gets dumped. Also MER-C please just detail your reasons for deleting the article instead of replying to every vote to keep the articles in question, it does you no credit at all. Kind Regards -  Heligoland   |   Talk  |   Contribs  11:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP & REWRITE Utterly shocking that this is up for deletion. This is ENTIRELY AGAINST WP:ORG, because NaSTA is a national organisation (the clue is in the acronym), and has been discussed countless times in the national press (if proof is needed, I can provide it).  This article must be kept, it can be dramatically improved if needed, and there is no good reason at all to delete it.  I'd like to add that the comments made by Ohconfucius about UK student TV have been particluarly offensive and ignorant.  I know we should all 'assume good faith', but his tone is totally out of order.  Honestly this makes me furious, is he suggesting that UK student TV IN IT'S ENTIRETY should be removed from Wikipedia?  NaSTA is not an informal organization (that was a mistake in the entry), it is a long standing union of student TV stations, recognised in the UK television indstry.  Granted, the article as it stands is pretty poor, but given time it can be expanded into a useful, valid, relevant entry. Being ignorant of this organisations existence is no reason to delete it. JMalky 11:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Noted by the Times, the Independent , and the NUS Antonality 11:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Times link refers only to NaSTA as an external link at the bottom of a list; Independent article appears to be a list of student TV stations, mentioning which ones have won the NaSTA awards - in addition, this article is an inside job and not actual journalism - it is described as a "plug" (i.e. an advertisement in disguise as, or embedded in, an article) on the Nasta forums where it is made clear that the author of the article is in the employ of one of NaSTA's TV stations. The Independent article is consequently an unreliable source (also, media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability). NUS is not a news source, and the mention in the link given is trivial - a brief description and an external link Bwithh 04:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are other articles, but I'll need to track them down in electronic form. JMalky 09:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:The NUS is not a news source, but as an enormously important national union, it's endorsment of NaSTA is good third-party verification of NaSTA's validity as required by WP:ORG.Tomisaac


 * KEEP There only a very small number of student TV stations in the UK, and ALL of them are watched by industry profesionals looking for fresh talent - especially at the time of the NaSTAs. and the NaSTAs are SO much more than awards - it's a conference, where we can all meet each other, and meet key industry people etc. NaSTA exists (ask Greg Dyke, he'll tell you!) - and there is no reason it shouldn't exist on Wikipedia...! adamhunt 12:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a bona fides article. scope_creep 17:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG. No claims made to encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 04:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how this fails WP:ORG - it's a large formal organisation (hundreds attend the conference, it covers well over a thousand members of student TV stations), and I've seen a few national newspaper articles (often in the media supplements) on student TV that are centred around NaSTA. I've not got links as most papers don't publish every article (especially features) on the web. It's certainly regarded in the TV industry as the thing to watch for new television talent, and considering that many smaller university-specific student bodies are regarded as notable, this large multi-university media organisation surely must be. The article as stands doesn't do NaSTA justice, I'll try rewriting when I get some time.Tomisaac 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One more comment, from WP:ORG "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source" - NaSTA is certainly national in scale, we have third-party sources, (NUS, papers) therefore is notable.Tomisaac 00:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note This afd discussion has been publicized on the NaSTA forums. Welcome, NaSTA forum members Bwithh 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, a message was sent out to alert existing Wikipedia users who are aware of NaSTA, in order to let them help safeguard the entry against rampant, uninformed deletionism. There is no guideline against that.  Everyone realises that this is not a ballot.  On the basis of discussion, it's pretty clear that the entry has been proved valid, as per WP:ORG.  I hope the above message wasn't written as a means of invalidating those arguments... JMalky 10:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, but it could certainly use beefing up. While the article subject is most certainly encyclopedic (as the 'pedians above me have proved well, I think), the information as it stands is somewhat lacking. Also, it should probably be moved to National Student Television Association and NaSTA made to be a redirection to the former. DezSP 01:06, 21 November 2006 (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.