Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omroep Zeeland


 * 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. Most editors believe that the sources for this article qualify for GNG. (non-admin closure) buidhe 23:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Omroep Zeeland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence this organization (radio station?) passes WP:NORG/GNG. Linked Dutch wiki article is a bit longer but not better referenced. Could consider SOFDELETE and redirect to parent organization (Nederlandse Publieke Omroep (organization)). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep [1] The length of an article should not be a criterium for deletion. It seems to be a criterium here. [2] Per WP:NEXIST it doesn't matter if there are sufficient references in the article or not. It only matters if valid sources exist. [3] Nominator evidently did not do a WP:BEFORE as he refers only to what is in the article and on nl.wiki. He seems confused about what a broadcaster is. This is reason to speedy the keep. gidonb (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you'd consider length to be a criterium here, I certainly agree it is not. The relevant criteria is failure of NORG/GNG. I did my BEFORE -  but I see no evidence you did yours... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  14:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did my WP:BEFORE before creating the article in February 2018 and stand 100% behind it, per all relevant criteria, including WP:NORG, WP:GNG, and the disregarded professional standard (!), WP:NMEDIA. If you keep nominating articles that pass all relevant criteria, and these nominations keep failing, then you do have a WP:BEFORE problem. The continuous arguing with each participant here reflects negatively on the nominator. The prodding of an article that passes the professional standards is forbidden per policy: "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." I.e. prod should never be used if there is not even the beginning of a case for regular deletion. AfD should not be used in such a case either but prodding is even more disruptive behavior. gidonb (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep What gives you the idea that this independent broadcaster is part of the Nederlandse Publieke Omroep (organization)??? Clearly, not a proper WP:BEFORE was done. The Banner  talk 12:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither of you have even tried to address that this fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG. If I am confused about what this even is, it is just further proof this mess of an article just needs WP:TNT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So you did not read the article and its WP assoiates carefully, did not conduct a thorough web search for aources, now you say you did not even read my answer you react to carefully? My #2 addresses the existence of sufficient valid sources that weren't searched for as part of this nomination! gidonb (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ad hominens and straw man fallacy are not good arguments, try again. Your #2 is simple WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES/WP:GOOGLEHITS. How about you present a single in-depth source or another source that meets NORG/GNG, instead of attacking fellow editors? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Look who's talking about straw man arguments! My #2 argument is explicitly about our POLICY "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". After being caught red-handed by multiple participants here in a WP:BEFORE failure, you change this into a there must be sources (essay) argument. One can't make this stuff up! Instead of arguing with every single participant here, why not withdraw the nomination? It was clearly a mistake. gidonb (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I expect a higher level of quality and civility from admins... The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per gidonb. With more sources added, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. SUPER ASTIG 01:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me over my vote, don't bother responding at all. I'm not looking for an argument here. So, I won't reply any further. I stand by my vote no matter what. SUPER ASTIG 01:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has been expanded and looks much better than before. Some of the expansion is routine business trivia or sourced to the subject, but some is better and sourced to independent sources. It's much more borderline now. My main concern is that there are still no in-depth sources about the company, some coverage of incidents it was involved in like getting their website hacked or one of their employees causing a scandal is problematic since it is not, well, in-depth. WP:NOTNEWS, after all. Let's see what others think. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly improved by Gidonb since the nomination. If some of the 25 sources now cited in the article are independent and reliable, then GNG is met. I think that demanding more sources in order to pass GNG just encourages the addition of more trivia, like the sexual assault incident. This article is fine; we should move on. -- Toughpigs (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.