Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Washington 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 no consensus. No more comments after a (2nd) relist, so I'm no consensusing this one. Only the nom is pro-deletion. (non-admin closure) &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  11:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

University of Washington Television

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unsourced article about a former public access station that is now only available on the internet. The person who deproded this claimed that he found plenty of sources by doing a Google search, but I can't find anything except for the school newspaper and the school's website. Rusf10 (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Every morning   (there's a halo...)  03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  Every morning   (there's a halo...)  03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This is one of a series of AfDs on public television stations by this Nom. Rusf10, I repeat the question that I haveasked before, do you know how to run new archive searches or have access to a news archive?  I ask again because, like several other stations tha twe have kept, this one was a bigger deal back a decade or two ago.  There were stories like [UWTV creates static] 2002   Puget Sound Business Journal, about for-profit stations accusing UWTV of unfair competition because it used publicly funded equipment to compete for content production contracts.  there were other stories on that conflict.  And quite a lot of regional coverage of the station's programs, feature stories like " UWTV brings Islam home to Seattle," "NOW YOU CAN TURN TO TV FOR HELP WITH THE INTERNET,'' and so forth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There still are only two sources both of them local. This is an organization, so WP:AUD is applicable here, but even under WP:GNG, two sources is not enough. Why don't I ask you a question? Do you do anything else here except for stalk me? Because looking at your recent edit history, it seems like you just follow me around and do little else.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, I edit at a lot of AfDs, and spend a lot of time improving content on articles at AfD. But, yes, I have noticed that you nominate a lot of articles on topics like  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lanesville Heritage Weekend, and Princeton Community Television, institutions that have been around for decades and with pages that need improvement.  You may have forgotten this suggestion I left on your talk page back in January,, in a sectoin wehre other editors had make similar suggestions: "*I advise you to slow down on nominating article for deletions. I just came upon Reformed Church of Highland Park at AfD. The article was strongly sourced when you nominated it. But you have continued to argue with the editors iVoting Keep in ways that indicate that you need to become more familiar with standards of notability. For example, you argue that "Even if the minister was a notable person, it still doesn't transfer to the church.", but a notable minister does contribute to notability. Similarly with your argument about the building, , secondary, WP:RS discussing a church's building do contribute to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)".E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- per User:E.M.Gregory. Contra to nom's claims, two sources is plenty to meet GNG.  And it's extraordinarily disingenuous to dismiss these sources as "local."  The University of Washington is in Seattle.  Seattle's CSA has a population of 4.5 million people.  This is bigger than many sovereign nations.  It's roughly the size of Ireland.  Will nominator proceed to dismiss all sources from Ireland as "local" and therefore not useful for establishing notability? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is not disingenuous! Did you even look at the articles? For example What does it say above the title of the article? "Local News" Yes, the Seattle Times has a local section for their local audience. It is not the same as if the story had appeared on the Front Page. Stories labeled as "local news" do not meet WP:AUD. Besides the fact that comparing a country to a city is an apples to oranges comparison for many reasons, the comparison to Ireland is actually is far more disingenuous than anything else in this entire discussion (in fact its pretty much a outright lie), for the fact that Ireland has roughly twice the population of the Seattle metro area.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, the Republic of Ireland has a population of 4,761,865 at the 2016 census. The Seattle CSA has a population of 4,459,677.  You're the one that brought the metro area into it, but even on your terms the metro area has a population of 3,733,580, which is nothing like half the population of Ireland.  Now, I agree that the sources appeared in the "local" section.  My point is that if you have a CSA of 4.7 million people, "local" has a very different meaning than it does in e.g. East Jesus, Tennessee.  There are as many people in Seattle's local area as there are in many major world countries, like Ireland.  Dismissing news because it's local to Seattle is like dismissing news because it's local to Ireland. It's not reasonable. Furthermore, the very guideline you're relying on, WP:AUD, contradicts you, as it says explicitly that "regional" news can be used to establish notability.  News that's labeled "local" in an area of 4.7 million people is regional or national most places in the world. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 12 April 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.