Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri-Valley Community 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, 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 television stations being presumed notable if they produce original content are meant for FCC-licensed terrestrial stations, not cable public access stations. Cable public access stations have their own separate provision in NMEDIA, which is that they do not get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, and instead have 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 alone, as it still 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 and reliably sourceable as meeting all three of those conditions, not just one or two of those things. 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]
Keep lack of access to a good new archive may be responsible for Nom's finding only "trivial" coverage. I have added some additional persuasive coverage of the station and it's history, status and funding, articles form which article can be further improved. A good deal more such coverage exists. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is in the gray area of "more of a guideline than a rule" WP:BCAST for "Public access cable stations" between State/NYC size and 50K population with just a "government access feed". I've added some RS, some of which could replace the "citation needed"s. StrayBolt (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the lengthy staff and small award sections should be deleted, since none of the content in either section is notable, and I marked three dead links, but the minor coverage that's there just barely meets WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:27, 26 March 2018 (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.