Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CmuTV

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 redirect to Carnegie Mellon University. Somone can merge it in when they source the material. I'm not going to merge in a paragraph of unsourced prose, however. Courcelles 04:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CmuTV[edit]

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

Non-notable closed circuit television station at a university. This station is not broadcast outside the university on any cable or broadcast channels. It is broadcast on the internet, but just about any dummy can broadcast a "tv channel" on the web. Finally, there are no third party sources to establish notability.. GrapedApe (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing from WP:RS to indicate why this particular closed-circuit channel is notable. A majority of the article is an unencyclopedic list of in-house programming. Many schools have this type of campus channel, and there is nothing to differentiate this from any others. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete: merge the existence and possibly the major programming into Carnegie Mellon University, drop the rest. -- BenTels (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and trim per BenTels. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carnegie Mellon University as per BenTels. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: could those editors suggesting a merge be more specific? That is, what sourced content should be merged ("major programming" is vague... what is the definition of "major" when there is no third-party sourcing?), and where in the main Carnegie Mellon article would be an appropriate location? --Kinu ^t/_c 18:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2010 (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.