Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/York Student 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, with a third for those who were asked to provide source for the claim to notablity, as it's readily available from Google books. ~ trialsanderrors 08:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

York Student Television


Student TV station and the biggest and most frequent recipient of the self-lauditary awards from NaSTA. It claims to be the longest continuously-running student TV. Methinks "So what?" Delete Ohconfucius 03:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, really? --Ter e nce Ong (C 08:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This should stay particularly since they also hold a guinness world record (Capt Jack Doicy)
 * Care to give us a source? MER-C 09:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete OMG, WTF, ETC, the whole bloody lot of 'em.SkierRMH 09:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Student TV Stations have a right to an entry in Wikipedia. Some are older than national broadcasters, and all of the UK ones (to my knowledge) could provide evidence that they are discussed in 'third party sources' (as per WP:ORG). Some of the comments made about student TV have been really ignorant and offensive.  Also, I'd like to know why none of the US stations are up for deletion. JMalky
 * Keep - Form all stations into one article, but don't delete. Almost every channel available in the UK is listed, just look at Propeller TV for an example. This should extend to student and community channels too, even if it only needs one entry for both of these categories. Kind Regards -  Heligoland   |   Talk  |   Contribs  11:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Simply because its a reall tv station and asserts notabiliy. scope_creep 17:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like most student TV stations, it's probably not notable enough to be featured in multiple independent reliable sources.  As for the claims to notability in the opening paragraph, if there aren't multiple independent reliable sources to verify them, then they are either false or not genuinely noteworthy.  Pan Dan 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Student TV stations have a lot of influence in the UK student population. To say YSTV (and NaSTA and other student stations) do not have sufficient notability is a farse. A quick google finds results from organisations as diverse as the BBC, the National Union of Students, MediaUK and Media Directions. The latter has produced a print article on YSTV, as have local press, and the NaTA orgabisation (of which YSTV is a part) has been featured in at least one UK national paper. Article should definately stay. Rowan 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "NaTA orgabisation" should read "NaSTA Organisation". Djomp 09:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As to your refs: The BBC article is trivial because it's of local interest -- note it's in the "where I live--North Yorkshire" section.  Your second link doesn't reference this station at all--I don't know why you include it.  Your third ref is a directory/contact info listing.  Your fourth ref has two quotes about the station.  Given that these are the most promising sources you could find, I can say with more confidence now than before that, like most student TV stations, this one is not the subject of multiple non-trivial outside sources.   Finally, your comment that student TV stations have influence in the UK might be relevant to a discussion about whether to have an article on student TV stations in the UK, but it has nothing to do with whether we should keep this article.  Pan Dan 16:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are you so desperate to delete this article? Where you bitten by a student TV station as a small child?
 * If you must know, yes. (Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.) Pan Dan 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. YSTV has been running longer than many national TV stations, and has had plenty of media attention over the years. The NaSTA awards are judged by professionals from the industry, so I think it's completely unfair to call them "self-lauditary". DezSP 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. YSTV meets the criteria for notability on account of the multiple media references linked on its talk page. If you claim the NaSTAs are self-lauditary, then you imply that the same applies to the BAFTAs, Academy Awards and any other award organised by the community or industry that it is relevant to. Additionally, only the response from pan dan suggests any reason for deletion.Labmonkey 12:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The "media references on its talk page" that aren't passing or trivial are from York University itself. To show that something is notable you have to show that the outside world, as represented by sources outside of the subject, have taken note of it.  Pan Dan 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree that the other references are 'passing'. More have already been listed on this page too. Rowan 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Can you point to a single reference that is not passing (e.g. the blurb in the London Independent), trivial (e.g. the Media UK directory entry), or local (the BBC "Where I Live--Yorkshire" article)? Pan Dan 14:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment An article by the BBC featuring only the station's web launch is hardly "trivial". If you would claim that this is not "outside" the subject due to the BBC being a broadcaster, then what references should *any* media organisation on Wikipedia use? Yes, local news, but by a national broadcaster, and on a national site. It's notable.144.32.128.113 11:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply The BBC clearly classifies the article as being of local interest only. As I said above, it's in the "Where I Live--Yorkshire" section.  Pan Dan 14:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment These arguments about the notability of sources are getting a little pedantic. Wether or not the article complies with the guidelines in WP:ORG is essentially a matter of opinion.  Given that the majority view is that the article should be kept, can we not just give YSTV the benefit of the doubt? JMalky 14:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply If the discussion seems pedantic to you, think about the general idea that's being illustrated here: Most student TV stations are not notable as reflected in the fact that outside publishers usually do not see fit to issue non-trivial works featuring a particular student TV station.  After examining the sources, this student TV station is no exception to that idea.  Pan Dan 15:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As pointed out above, the guidelines are merely guidelines, they are not there to be used to find any possible way of removing an article. It's one thing to request deletion of a page that nobody bothers with, but persisting in attacking an article that has widespread support just seems like a refusal to back down.Labmonkey 17:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply "the guidelines are merely guidelines, they are not there to be used as a to find any possible way of removing an article" -- Please read my above reply more carefully. You imply that the delete voters here are using the guidelines in a lawyerly fashion to try to search for some tiny, inconsequential reason why this article should be deleted.  But the opposite is true.  This article violates both the letter and spirit of WP:ORG.  Most local organizations, including student TV stations, are not notable, and this one is no exception.  Pan Dan 17:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Actually, I just imply that you and the contributors requesting "keep" have differing viewson the interpretations of the se guidelines. I respect the fact that you were the only one who came up with a reply that was neither empty "Delete- really" or plain spite "Delete OMG WTF the whole bloody lot of them", but as it is, this boils down to your assertation that the media mentions are trivial, against multiple explanations of why they are not.
 * Comment "Multiple explanations"? I don't see one.  Pan Dan 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously, why are you pressing for deletion againt the wishes of so many other users? No stupid questions, no stupid answers. Just come up with a new, valid case for deletion or admit that you either can't bear to lose an argument or that you have some personal dislike of student TV.Labmonkey 21:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment To participate constructively in this and future AfD debates (this one's almost done), please stop making silly assertions about people you're debating with and start addressing my/their arguments. Pan Dan 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ReplyThis is just going round in circles. I have already addressed your argument with reference to media mentions, as have other users. You then claim that the media mentions are NN. Explanations are given my JMmalky, Rowan and are backed up by the links on the discussion page of the article. You have never used any other argument than an opinion that the stories linked are not notable enough, based on your interpretation of a proposed guideline, WP:ORG. That doesn't even stand up if you discount the BBC site, as Media Directions is a published magazine which falls under the guideline.
 * Furthermore, I agree that this discussion is almost over. The majority of contributors favour keeping the article and there's a clear list of sources that you are the only user to continue to dispute. I offered the chance to provide a new case for deletion, but you didn't do so. With regards to making "silly assertions", repeatedly disputing sources does seem to be an attempt to drag this out, and just seems to me like you have a personal problem with the article. I may be wrong, so just explain why you want this page removed so badly. Just stop deflecting, and say what you have against the article.Labmonkey 00:12, 23 November 2006 (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.