Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O Broadcasting System


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

O Broadcasting System

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previously Proded and deleted. Previous prod reason was "Unreferenced Broadcast TV network of dubious notability." Article re-created with roughly the same content as before. Article was previously deleted after the prod 2 days ago and was just re-created today. Hasteur (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Delete. NN, etc. → ROUX   ₪  23:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep.I don't understand this situation. This TV station is existed; people can check their official website to find out. We cannot just simply erase the existing tv network because some people in the community are lazy on researching some info. Please check more before going any further. → ilwoo99   ilwoo99  23:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this is your first AfD, I'll lay some policies out
 * Notability - This defines what kind of articles we will accept in en Wikipedia
 * WP:EXISTS - This is a essay concerning the common response "It Exists" for a rationale to keep
 * WP:AGF - It is policy to be civil and assume good faith on the editors and not make accusations of "some people in the community are lazy on researching some info".
 * WP:BURDEN - It's the responsibility of the editor who adds or wants to keep content in question to demonstrate the reasons for adding it. You added the same unsourced and uncited text that was there previously.
 * WP:INDEPENDENT - While the link to the network's official page is useful in a "Getting More Info" way, it is not independent so we cannot accept it for claims of notability.
 * And Finally WP:BEFORE - A reccomended guideline that editors perform a series of checks to make sure it's reasonable that the article cannot be saved. For your claims that I didn't do it, I'll do one right now.
 * Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep.
 * Article could possibly be notable enough, but as it was re-created after a deletion from expired proposed deletion it is my understanding we are to treat this like an opposed prod. There is no reason for a speedy keep.
 * If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See "Sourcing search" below)
 * Google search - Still contains several wikipedia scrapers
 * Google Books search]
 * Google News search - Of note it does contain 1 Press release style article about the network going live 4 years ago.
 * Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
 * Article was recently created and there is no evidence of vandalism.
 * Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
 * Article's Talk page doesn't exisist
 * Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
 * No substantial links. Mostly new article indexers.
 * Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles.
 * I added the inter language link, the KO article is primarily unsourced except for 3 events in the network's history. Therefore there's not a lot we could do to save it.
 * And therefore, that is why I think the article should be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. These sources cited in the Korean Wikipedia article appear to be independent and reliable, and amount to significant coverage: |article|default. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So I understand, you're voting keep because 3 events in the station's history (about 1/50th of the total article content) is cited in the Korean version? Hasteur (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because there is significant coverage of the station in multiple independent reliable sources, per the general notability guideline. I would add that the Korea Times source that you noted above, but neglected to link, also contributes to notability. It is credited to a staff reporter, and I don't see what makes it "press release style". It is written in precisely the style that I would expect an article in an independent media outlet about the opening of a TV station to be be written. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Phil Bridger and per WP:BROADCAST.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep  How does this meet WP:ORG? No substantial depth of coverage, Wikipedia is not a directory.  Heywoodg 08:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC) After reading WP:BROADCAST, it does appear to meet the notability criteria  Heywoodg  08:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per sources in the article, those cited above by user:Phil Bridger, and that per these sources, the topic's notability appears to pass WP:BROADCAST. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - These sources were added to the article:
 * (Korean.) (August 1, 2011.) |article|default "Kyung-TV OBS, 1 from Seoul to start broadcasting globally." Joinsmsn.com. Accessed September 2011.
 * (Korean.) (March 21, 2011.) "Seoulseo see Kyung-TV ... KCC, offshore permit retransmission." Asia Economy. Accessed September 2011.
 * (Korean.) (May 20, 2010.) "Times-OBS Kyung-business agreement." Kyung-Times. Accessed September 2011.
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 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.