Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K04QR-D

Add links
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 no consensus. and I do not see one emerging with yet another relist when the last brought on zero input. It appears that a smaller grouping might bring about a clearer decision, and the standard waiting period does not apply at the close of this AfD. Star Mississippi 23:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K04QR-D[edit]

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

K04QR-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This AfD contains 142 articles. The lead article has been selected in alphanumeric order.

Full list of articles

Innovate Corp., also known as HC2 Holdings, is a major owner of low-power TV stations in the United States. Its stations primarily broadcast lower-tier national digital multicast television networks, infomercials, and in some larger markets channels leased to independent programmers. However, many of the individual low-power stations lack notability. K25NG-D was deleted and turned into a redirect to a new list, List of stations owned by Innovate Corp., and Nathan Obral and I propose the same fate for 142 more individual low-power TV stations across the United States (35 states and Puerto Rico).

Many HC2 stations were built in the last 12 years and have never had any local presence or programming sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. Others were around since the 1980s, 1990s, and/or 2000s, but with non-notable histories such as rebroadcasting national religious programming or with no mentions in the local press. We scouted the entire list of current and former HC2 stations with articles and determined that 143 (including K25NG-D) were not notable, 21 might be notable (requiring further research and/or article remediation), and 15 returned sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass the GNG.

List articles are sufficient to hold the subchannel information, which merits being displayed in a company or by-state list. These are valid redirect targets. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie, for an AFD this ambitious, you need a lot of solid participation from experienced editors to reach a conclusive decision if you are considering deleting this many articles. I think a notification on a relevant WikiProject talk page would help garner more eyes for considering your proposal. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz I already notified the Television stations task force and WikiProject Television itself. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for notability and agree that a list would be appropriate. I prefer a single company list, but the second proposal of by-state lists would be fine too. DJ Cane (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for most of these, but after an evaluation, I noticed that there are some that should be put under further evaluation. These include:

K07AAD-D, It itself has a decent amount of sources for it to stand up on.

KAHC-LD, Same could be said for KAHC-LD, but after doing a slightly further dive, I think they could be deleted.

KBGU-LD, They have an actual source,and some filler ones that could help them stand up to the test.

KBTU-LD, They certainly have the requirements to pass GNG, and the 1st one which I think should have already been safe in the 1st place.

KEHO-LD, 1st one who has their ident on YouTube. KEHO-LD's sources are decent, but not good enough to be an instant pass.

KHPK-LD, At this point I'm just going to begin mentioning.

KNAV-LD,KPMF-LD,KQDF-LD,KTVP-LD,KUGB-CD,KUSE-LD,KUVM-LD.

And now, to the W-Calls! (Merge W20EJ-D to WOST instead of a simple redirect),WCTZ-LD is good enough for instant pass,Same with WCZU-LD. WKUT-LD for needs further evaluation,Also includes WKUW-LD,WQAW-LD,WUDL-LD,WUDZ-LD, and WYGA-CD.

However most of these sources are from FCC, I suppose they could be allowed. Extending the list soon. Danubeball (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Danubeball: I think it's worth me clarifying a point about the GNG. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The FCC is not a secondary source that can be used to demonstrate notability, though it is a reliable source that can be used. It's useful in conjunction with them, but when the topic itself lacks the local and trade news significant coverage to pass the GNG, then we can't have an article on it.
      I will admit that KBTU-LD might actually be worth keeping; it honestly belonged in the "Maybe" column. I did put WTSJ-LD, which is similar, in that boat.
Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After taking out the sources, so far there are still some stations that still maintain the 5-sources, Including KUSE-LD, KMPF-LD, WCZU-LD, WCTZ-LD, WKUW-LD. (Why 5? Because 4 and 3 felt like too little.) Funnily enough, there’s 5 stations here. What happens to them? They all seem good enough to be in further evaluation. For statistic purposes, that’s 142 stations down to 23, further down to just 5. That’s roughly ~3.5% of stations here remaining.Danubeball (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me analyze these five station pages, excluding the FCC and RabbitEars.
  • KUSE has a now-dead page that looks like it was a personal blog hosted by a Canadian; a mention of its sale as part of 60 Equity stations; what must be the new version of the personal blog page; and an article about a never-completed large LPTV sale.
  • The KPMF article has a mention about KAIT's CW subchannel, which is not this station, and several affiliate lists.
  • The citations in WCZU-LD are mostly cable lineups, a now-dead forum link, two similar (but dead link) articles on cable carriage, and two blogs.
  • The WCTZ-LD citations are mostly press releases and FCC system mirrors.
  • WKUW-LD is mostly the same.
I don't see the significant coverage of the station itself that justifies notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, when I was sorting through on which ones should be thrown out and which ones should still remain, Appearently the FCC thing could still be used as a source, but only once* *Since you mentioned it could be used, but not to establish notability, I figured it made sense for all sources to just only count as one. So I re-evaluated some of these (With the pages) and There’s some which should’ve still been left standing.
These include: KQDF-LD,KUGB-CD,WKUT-LD,WQAW-LD, and WYGA-CD.(However, due to discovering that the source used for KMPF-LD in the CW didn’t even mention them at all, Disqualified.)

So here’s the All-New list! KUSE-LD KCZU-LD KCTZ-LD WKUW-LD KQDF-LD KUGB-CD WKUT-LD WQAW-LD WYGA-CD Danubeball (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and also, you missed a station. WZCK-LD, and also W23BW-D Danubeball (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Danubeball WZCK is in the "Maybe" column, and I have substantial newspaper sourcing on W23BW-D when it was W54BH "WSSM-TV", making it one of the 15 definite keeps. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think I found an extra. KPTN-LD. Couldn’t find sources with a Google search. Danubeball (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Danubeball That's on the "Maybe" list, as there is some 1990s material out of St. Louis on that station. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would prefer to see a separate discussion or WP:PROD for each station. Blanket statements made as justification for deletion may apply to the stations but not to the articles. ~Kvng (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a source of debate between Sammi Brie and I... is it better to put these AfDs all at once, or individually? I sided with her on doing them as a collective group as the reasoning would be largely the same for them all, plus IMO doing 140 individual AfDs could have resulted in a WP:CLUSTERFUCK in its own right. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 17:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that editors are carving out exceptions for some of the candidates for deletion and advocating individual articles get redirected, this discussion needs further debate. If nominator believes that the AFD list should be reduced, doing so would greatly aid whoever takes on the closure of this discussion. It would also benefit a closer to know what the specific redirect targets for these pages are. And thank you for notifying the relevant WikiProjects about this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Too many here and the articles are not identical. Pages can be redirected without use of the deletion process. Peter James (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They may not be identical per se but share the same common problems (lack of sourcing outside primary sources, notability issues and an overall lack of visibility in their general markets). Vjmlhds, who wrote the article on WEKA-LD, is indifferent on its deletion as “…those stations are (perhaps literally) a dime a dozen.” Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 00:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nathan Obral is right. I did create the article shortly after the station came on the air, and I do update it when the situation dictates, but at the end on the day, it really is just a (very) cheap low power station whose channels are all paid programming (infomercials, home shopping, religious) that can be found on multiple other channels in town, plus it has ZERO press or publicity (you REALLY have to dig to find references), so if the plug were to get pulled, I wouldn't raise a stink - believe me, I've fought for other articles not to be deleted, and I've helped rescue some. This article ain't one of those. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've opted to remove KBTU-LD from the discussion, but I still fundamentally agree about the other 141. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the primary sourcing is troubling but there are enough on this list that could be worth keeping that it doesn't make sense to delete them all. I think a more careful nomination of just the ones without any hope of immediate expansion would likely get a Delete !vote from me. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see prior relisting comment. Rather than a No consensus close, I'd like to see some agreement on how to move forward with this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 11 February 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K04QR-D&oldid=1140198466"