Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K17ET

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. BD2412 T 19:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K17ET

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

K17ET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a translator station that isn't even in operation anymore. The only sources are fcc filings, giving it zero notability. Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As the original creator of this article over 14 years ago, I can say with certainty that our standards have changed a bit, and we don't extend any presumed notability to stations that exist just to retransmit other stations or networks with no local material whatsoever. (Even running separate commercial breaks isn't enough by itself, not that you'd find any on a TBN station anyhow.) If we had a list of TBN's former translators/repeaters, I might suggest redirecting to that, but so far as I can tell we don't. There's still a part of me that would like if we had something on every broadcast facility that ever existed, but for some stations there just isn't enough out there to justify it. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: As this station was sold to Regal Media and wasn't owned by TBN at the time it signed off, redirection to the List of TBN Affiliates would be incorrect. Declaring this "just another TBN translator" shows that folks, with all due respect to my fellow editor above, haven't even looked at the article. To Rusf10, the article has 4 references on it. FCC filings are references from a highly notable source, we need to stop acting like they aren't. Presumed notability is indeed extended. An FCC license has been enough for many, many years over at WPRS and had been enough at TVS. Again, with all due respect to Wcquidditch, I respectfully disagree. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:55 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Who hasn't even looked at the article? Me or User:Wcquidditch (who wrote the article)? FCC filing are WP:PRIMARY sources, you need secondary sources to establish notability. They are not even close to be "highly notable". There is no presumption of notability, otherwise all tv stations are given auto-notability since all are required to file with the FCC (see WP:BCAST for guidelines that state translators as non-notable). It is "just another TBN translator", TBN does not localize its content on these stations, its a broadcast of a satellite feed.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::Um, who's been here for almost 16 years, has multiple GAs and an FA under his belt? Yeah, that'd be me....I know what a damned primary source is, ya damned fool! YOU still have missed the point, it wasn't a TBN translator because it wasn't owned by TBN. It was owned by Regal Media. Can't redirect it to List of TBN affiliates when it wasn't owned by TBN or broadcasting TBN programming, now can we? Also, exactly where does it say that a US federal government source isn't "highly notable"? Federal Government sources (ie: anything .gov, anything .mil) is considered HIGHLY reliable under RS. Always has. Not sure where you've been. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:51 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - while FCC filings are indeed reliable sources, they are not secondary - significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources is generally required to show notability, and I'm not seeing that here. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:Cedar Rapids TV In the intervening years, the majority of the TBN translators planned to be sold off to EUE either died or became H2/DTV America subchannel farms. This entire station's history is tied to being a TBN translator, and the sale to EUE never completed, so at best, a redirect to the template to keep its categorizations is for the best here. Nate • (chatter) 20:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:*I actually would be OK with this. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:32 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I've never heard of using a template as a redirect target for a page. The only valid redirect target would have to be a page where the station is mentioned, no such target exists.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's nowhere in the rules saying this can't be considered; I think it's a good compromise because it keeps it targeted somewhere which reflects its geographical location, and retains the existing categories as-is, rather than just throwing the reader into a confusing 'list of' alphabet soup, as is done with many of these 'shack with a Dish receiver tuned to channel 260/263 and a cheapo generator which projects its calls' translators which air either TBN or Daystar. Nate • (chatter) 23:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K17ET&oldid=1068864928"