Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GlamTV

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 - there is no "right" to an article for TV stations - it must prove merit. Also, assertion of notability is not sufficient. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GlamTV

GlamTV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

NN student TV station with very small output per WP:ORG. I refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUST Six of the Best Ohconfucius 03:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - too non-notable. - Richardcavell 04:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This should stay particular since it was featured in the sunday times, or is the world leading newspaper no longer a source of notable information? (Capt Jack Doicy)

But it wasn't the main focus of the article, which it must be to be notable. MER-C 09:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OMG, WTF, ETC, the whole bloody lot of 'em.SkierRMH 09:49, 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). Also, I'd like to know why none of the US stations are up for deletion. JMalky
    • Comment - I agree that student TV stations have as much right to an entry as a national broadcaster. I also agree that some are older than national broadcasters... but this one isn't. - Richardcavell 15:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, each station should be judged on it's merits. Whilst I believe that all student TV stations should be allowed a page, it is true that some are more 'notable' than others, although I hate that word in this context. There doesn't seem to have been much thought put into nominating all the student TV stations for deletion, and in my opinion careful consideration of each article is what's needed. But it's not happening! JMalky 15:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 11:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Again I agree with JMalky. This article clearly asserts notability scope_creep 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Asserting notability is not enough, and there isn't enough third party coverage to actually provide notability. B.t.w., nothing has a "right" to a Wikipedia article - at least I'm not aware of a law that would provide for such a right. Sandstein 19:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I really didn't mean that so literally. What I mean is that I see no good reason why the article shouldn't exist. JMalky 20:09, 21 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.