Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radiotelevision of Herzeg-Bosnia

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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radiotelevision of Herzeg-Bosnia

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

No sources, most information is highly subjective and false. Xzpx (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so this article obiously isn't popular enough for anyone else to put anything here. I have edited the article with citation needed and other tags where citations are missing, or the article is otherwise incorrect. As you can see there is lot of citations missing. This article is mostly false, and highly subjective. Here are some examples in a short article:

Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina

"broadcasting organization of the former Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, now of the Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina." Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a vague term, and I as a Croat of B&H have never herd of RTVHB, or listened to the radio. This is probably true for most Croats living in Bosnia, or outside the Herzeg-Bosnia region in Herzegovina (which makes up the majority of Croats in B&H).

10 million German marks

"Interestingly, television had never started broadcast its program[citation needed], although in radiotelevision was spent more than 10 milion German marks[citation needed]." The 10 million number seems made up. No sources for it, and I doubt anyone could spend 10 million marks during the war to set up a television station.

Croatian Language

By the end the article becomes simply false and very hostile:

"He[who?] broadcasted program on Croatian language[citation needed], until 1999, when his work was banned."

Who was band? What is Erotel?

Forcibly

" and forcibly took away the transmittersands and handed them over to Federalna TV"

Really? They snatched it from RTVHB's hands? If it is a legal takeover how can it be forcibly?

Federalna TV languages

"which broadcast program in Bosnian language"

False, Federalna TV broadcasts on all official languages of Bosnia (Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian)

further Federalna TV hostility

"which broadcasts anti-Croat[citation needed] program and jeopardizes the Croatian language and Croatian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina[citation needed]."

Hostile, False and misleading.

Conclusion

As you can see if these sentences are deleted the article is left with a single sentence and a sidebar. Would this still be an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xzpx (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

RE

Source

This is source of this article: http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrvatska_Republika_Herceg-Bosna#Mediji. If you are really Croat of Bosnia and Herzegovina, you will understand this text on Croatian Wikipedia, because it is written on Croatian language.

You're referencing another wikipedia article without any sources.

Croatian Language

He and his were my mistakes in text, so I corrected them into it and its.

Federalna TV languages

Federalna TV broadcasts program on Bosnian language. Fact about three-language (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian) Federalna TV is only formality.

This is not true. The three languages are the same, with small differences. I have heard countless times FTV commentators and anchormen/women say 'tjedan' - which is Croatian language term. 'sedmica' would be in Bosnian and 'nedelja' would be Serbian. Also, Croatian names for months are used every third day on FTV. Xzpx (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Ivan OS 19:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything in this discussion so far, apart from the first two words of the nomination, is irrelevant to the issue of deletion. Our task at AfD is not to determine whether the article content is true, but whether independent reliable sources exist with enough coverage on which to base an article. I can find no evidence of such sources under the English name, the name in the language(s) formerly known as Serbo-Croat or the abbreviation. It is not credible that a notable media organisation operating in the last 20 years in Europe would have no sources available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hints for participants in this discussion:

If you want to argue for keeping this article then please identify reliable publications independent of Radiotelevizija Herceg-Bosne that have significant coverage of it. If they are online then provide the web address and if they are in print, such as books or newspapers, then provide enough information so that other editors can identify them. To argue for deletion please explain why you believe that such coverage does not exist. Such arguments will have far more weight than arguments about the current content of the article based on your personal knowledge.
Please don't use section headings, such as "==This is a section heading==". These make the discussion difficult to read.
Please sign your posts by adding "~~~~" to the end, so that we all know who wrote what and when.

Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Although this article needs a lot of work, I would keep it for now and provide a chance for a better English language text (the current is an obvious translation from the region language syntax). There seem to exist certain interesting claims, and a TV station that enters the fray of 3rd world countries is inherently notable. Oh, and, the tips for other editors opinig above are a bit off-putting. Please opine as you wish everyone. Thanks. Turqoise127 03:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sources would you suggest basing an improved article on? Phil Bridger (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sources. I gave my opinion. You however, did not give your opinion; you proceeded to "educate" all participants by offering tips on how to vote, effectively discouraging independent comments and thought. Your tips are a form of censorship and they are a blatant tool of influencing strictly source based opinion, and yet I could bribe a journalist tomorrow to write crap about me and then do an article on myself based on that source I paid for. Do you see why we need independent opinions here? That's too bad I seem to remember you had some quality input on here, especially on the Balkan region. Oh how the project just keeps regressing...Turqoise 127 21:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, the suggestion that we are here to decide if "sources exist with enough coverage on which to base an article" is something from the 2006 WP:N, today's WP:N repeatedly (if not 100% of the time) denies that article content is a wp:notability issue. I have been researching this topic, and there are numerous hits, not easy to read with Google translate. In general we know that media don't tend to talk about competing media, but since media are important to Wikipedia's ability to source our articles, we don't need a cornucopia stuffed and overflowing with sources for media articles. Here is an in-depth analysis of TV HB in 1996 from a group associated with Association for Progressive Communications, here. Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about the current article content, but in fact explicitly stated that content is not the issue for this discussion, and today's notability standards very much are about the existence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability only requires evidence, it is WP:V that requires sources; [WP:N#Notability requires verifiable evidence] has a shortcut WP:NRVE and states, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:NRVE, evidence of notability has been provided, along with one strong in-depth source. This does not prevent ordinary editing from merging this topic into a broader topic. Unscintillating (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2012 (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.