Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-Valley Community Television

Tri-Valley Community Television

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wasn't sure to bring this to AfD or not. The argument to keep is that the tv channel serves several large towns. However, I can't seem to find much independent coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Most of the coverage I'm finding is routine stuff in the local newspaper like "you can watch tonight's high school basketball game on TV30", nothing indepth. The article right now is completely unsourced, so that doesn't help either. Rusf10 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. WP:BCAST says that "Because of the public interest served, most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes." This station definitely produces original coverage, even after the cuts discussed in the press articles. There's a decent amount of local press coverage of the station (see, for instance, [1]) but as Rusf10 points out, it's very local and much of it is run-of-the-mill. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - May not meet WP:GNG but WP:BCAST is more forgiving and subject appears to meet requirements of first and/or second-to-last WP:BCAST bullet points due to original content produced and large population served. ~Kvng (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with WP:BCAST is its not actually a guideline. However, the first bullet point deal with over-the-air broadcast stations, so that is inapplicable here. Depending on how you read the second to last bullet point it may meet it, but like I said its not actually a guideline, so it really should have to meet WP:GNG--Rusf10 (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, but WP:BCAST actually is a guideline - it's not an essay. The long-form link is Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiachra10003:From the top of that page "This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. It is intended to make up for a deficiency considered overly detailed for inclusion in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."

WP:OUTCOMES is also not a policy or guideline. These things are nevertheless useful for recording consensus to help avoid repeating the same deletion arguments too frequently. ~Kvng (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying to completely ignore WP:BCAST, I'm just trying to put it in context.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you make a fair point. The whole of WP:NMEDIA seems to have a somewhat ambiguous status and when I read through the two archives of the talk pages, the ambiguity only deepens. The page changed from an essay to an explanatory statement in the summer of 2013. Also, when you go to Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines#Notability, NMedia is omitted. However, if you go to , NMedia is included. User:Bearcat and User:Ritchie333 seem to have been the people most involved in the discussions around that time and may have light to shed here. WP:BCASTOUTCOMES was what I was most familiar with as a representation of consensus. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just to clarify, WP:BCAST's provisions for the notability of television stations being presumed notable if they produce original content are meant for FCC-licensed terrestrial stations, not cable public access stations. The actual standard for a station of this type is that it has to actually be sourceable over WP:GNG — in the absence of an FCC license, an operation like this doesn't get an automatic presumption of notability just because it technically meets one of the other criteria for the notability of television stations, because it doesn't meet all of them. (By the same token, a Part 15 radio station can technically meet the "produces original programming" criterion as well, but it's not presumed notable on that basis as it fails at least one of the other base criteria: the holding of an FCC license.) A television or radio station needs to meet all of the criteria for the notability of broadcast stations, not just one or two of the four, to get an automatic presumption of notability — it has to be FCC-licensed and actually operational and an originator of standalone content, not "or" — but a station that fails one or more of the criteria can still be kept if it can be shown as the subject of enough media coverage to clear GNG. That said, the sourcing already here isn't that bad (except that the CNN citation isn't relevant to the station's notability or lack thereof, because it's not about the station but merely verifies an otherwise tangential fact about a former employee) — I'd still like to see a little bit more sourcing, if possible, before I'm entirely convinced, but it's already some distance down the path toward keepability. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]