Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TRT International


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

TRT International

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: Was a major public channel. Gazozlu (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Meeting GNG. Notable channel. Tictictoc (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The only source in the article is TRT itself so obviously they would call their own channel notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure how familiar you are with it, but this channel is a public tv channel that has been available since the 90s or something. There isn't a valid reason to think that this channel is not notable. Gazozlu (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article says it was closed in 2009 Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Simply asserting that the channel is notable or vice versa has no actual bearing in such discussions. The fact that the channel is defunct is also no reason to delete by itself per WP:NPERM. The question is whether there is any WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. There does appear to be some significant discussion of this channel in scholarship. What we need is a closer examination of these sources. --GGT (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2022 (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.