Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princeton Community Television


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Princeton Community Television

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local access station, article fails WP:GNG and contains original research. Even the website provided at the end of the article does not contain that much information. Other than a couple local newspaper articles with a brief mention, I cannot find any sources at all. So there is no confusion, this station is operated by Princeton, the town (not Princeton University). Rusf10 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Princeton Community Television is not operated by the town of Princeton, it is a separate not-for-profit 503C. With the continuing consolidation of media independent voices are extremely important. I don't understand how to follow every little rule on wikipedia but I do know that Princeton Community Television is a real thing that deserves a page. When the state of New Jersey shut down NJN Princeton Community Television became the largest producer of content for public Television in New Jersey. https://pro.imdb.com/company/co0370418/?ref_=fn_co_co_13 IMDb shows over a page of movies and TV shows produced and distributed by Princeton Community Television. Instead of trying to shut down the voice pf public television, why not help to expand and research the page so that it better meets wikipedia rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanotherclue (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not question whether the station exists, but the current article is unsourced. We need independent reliable sources. When I did a Google search I could barely find any mention of this in reliable sources. Unfortunately, IMDB is not a reliable source because it is user edited just like wikipedia. see WP:RS for more information on reliable sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as it does produce a large amount of original content which is one of the factors for notability in television stations Atlantic306 (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. No refs in the article, serves a population of 30,000. Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Szzuk, just fyi, the question at AfD is, "is the topic notable"; and in most cases it can only be answered by searching for sources. It took me a while to understand this, Wikipedia is such a complicated place.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC) (Searches on "Princeton TV"  and "TV30" = Princeton seem to get some hits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete a stations own website is not enough on its own to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Possible keep (slight change to iVote after teking time to do a small, sourced upgrade article.) it doesn't keep much searching using the search terms I suggested above to find ONGOING, SIGCOV of some of the individual programs in the station's lineup. I added some and will be watching to see what other editors find.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, hits and significant coverage are not the same thing. The sources you added about Eric Mintel, are about Eric Mintel, not Princeton Community Television. The sources you added have done absolutely nothing to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Rusf, please consider that some of us take a different approach to assessing notability. I take the slow road, constantly second-guessing myself, considering that there may be alternative search terms, that my initial sources may have taken the wrong track, that some topics simply need more editors who may notice different aspects of a topic. I don't mind tagging articles that I happen for notability, partly to warn readers, and partly in the hope that a knowledgeable reader will take a moment to source an inadequate article. when an article like this one seems not to be misleading or malicious, I would prefer to see it tagged for a while in the hope that someone in Princeton will source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, the articles about Eric Mintel's new program (Princeton Community Television) go into some detail about this program, but my point is 1.) to encourage other editors to try alternative search terms, and, 2.) to suggest that the sourcing/notability may lie with the individual shows the station originates.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that gBooks searches get hits, the ones I saw were not descriptions of the station, they were citations to specific programs produced by the station - things like book talks and academic panel discussions that the station broadcast.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:HEYMANN - (slight, HEYMaNN, not a full HEYMANN upgrade.) I ran a news archive search Princeton + TV30.  Then tightened, expanded, and sourced a couple of the  the programs to articles in respected newspapers, like the Allentown, PA Morning Call, Philadelphia Inquirer, Courier News, and Home News Tribune, to show the sort of sourcing that is available for this station.  I also tagged REIMPROVE.  Article was completely unsourced when Nom found it during his process of rapidly nominating a series of community television stations for deletion.  But a quick search shows that reliable sourcing is available to establish nobility (addendum:) and shows that article - which needs to have unsourced material and longstanding PROMO removed -  can be improved using WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is NOT a HEYMANN! You keep finding sources with trival mentions like . These do not establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage suffices.  Also I would think any community TV station would be notable, would have coverage, so AFD is probably pointless. --Doncram (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, community tv stations do not have auto-notability, they must pass WP:GNG. Even WP:BROADCAST suggests that "Public access cable stations are not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area. For example, a statewide public access channel, or a channel for all of New York City could be presumed notable. A "governmental access" feed that runs a text generator of community events plus city council meetings for a population of 50,000 is not generally presumed notable, but can be conferred notability by meeting the standards set forth in WP:CORP.". Since this only serves 30,000 people, it really should take a lot of in-depth coverage to establish notability under GNG.
 * Agree. Community tv stations need to be serving a city or large town or otherwise satisfy gng or corp. With a population of 30,000 I estimate at any one time there will be around 30 people watching. Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep with the improvements to the article. --RAN (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2018 (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.