Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raukawa 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 delete. WP:NME wangi (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raukawa television

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

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

Lacks notability and verification. After some searching I think they exist in reality, I am not sure, but that does not make them notable. Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it also lacks notability and verification and is described as a sub section of the first page/company:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:TELEVISION, as a non-notable company I have never heard of it anyway until now. Sheldybett (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, I can't find anything but brief mentions or entries in directories. They definitely exist, but without coverage, don't meet any Wikipedia criteria. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: source searches in Google, WorldCat and JSTOR haven't turned up anything of note. Analysis of the sources in the external links section:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"Home Raukawa FM".	Affiliated.	? Probably reliable for things like business address but not for asserting notability.	Naturally.	✘ No
"404 Not Found". `{{cite web}}`: Cite uses generic title (help)	Title indicates source was affiliated.	? Same as for the website.	? 404	✘ No
"YouTube".	? 404	Most YouTube videos aren't reliable sources.	? 404	✘ No
"Tokoroa - Google Maps".	It's a map.	? Just asserts a location.	Presumably the business address but that doesn't mean it's notable.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

All in all, it's a clear failure of both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. SITH (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per all. Sources are not sufficient to pass notability. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2019 (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.