Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewTV

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. Consensus is that the topic meets Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

NewTV

NewTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Local cable access tv station, does not pass WP:ORG. Article was created by a WP:COI account. Other than a few Boston Globe articles, there doesn't seem to be any reliable source coverage. I do not believe the Globe articles alone are enough to pass the WP:AUD requirement of WP:ORG. Rusf10 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources - Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• keep , WP:HEY, I did a little expand, soruce. This is a community TV station in an upscale town where the population appears to have the time and resources to make like Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney, Let's put on a show!. There is RS coverage of 3 decades of NewTV's programs, controversies, impact, and financing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:HEY, my ass, this is the typical e.m. gregory, "let's find any source that as much as mentions the subject and call it indepth coverage". I must remind you that the Boston Globe is a local source here. Whether the town is upscale or not has nothing to do with it.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The Boston Globe is the major regional daily. It has run many INDEPTH stories about programs and controversies at this station, only some of which have been added - there has been such a lot of coverage and over so many years and topics. I made, merely, a beginning.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - The article has 28 sources spanning decades. The entity is an arm of the government (not a commercial organization). It survives from a 5% tax it surcharges to all residents. XavierItzm (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Quantity is not the same as quality.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep -- This local station produced an Emmy-winning show that was written up in the Boston Globe. Why are we even discussing deleting it? The sources in the article already show a clear pass of GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a Regional Emmy, its not that notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The Boston CSA has more than 8 million people. Regional in Boston is more than national in most countries. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Boston is a notable city so everything associated with Boston must also be notable, see WP:NOTINHERITED Also, nothing actually indicates that this channel is available in the city of Boston. The channel is available in a town of 85,000 people, not 8 million.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Way to completely misconstrue my argument just so you can cite some policy which you evidently haven't read. The point about the Globe is that, due to the population of the Boston CSA, its regional coverage implicates more people than the national coverage in most nations in the world. Thus a story in the Boston Globe is very weighty evidence when it comes to gauging notability. Get it now? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Article seems to show significant notability, and has some credible sourcing. Article certainly needs some cleanup, but should be tagged, not deleted. I'd also question the nominators comments about WP:COI. The user has not claimed COI, (apart from a username block), so we shouldn't infer in a conversation, and even if it was a COI account that made the page, it isn't a deletion policy. Articles created by COI members are strongly discouraged, but not against WP ToS. In these cases, if the member has a COI, he really should declare it, but it has gone through AfC, which is how we should send all COI cases. The Boston Globe articles should really be enough for GNG Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - If I recall correctly, I was not the original author of the article, I have only updated and edited the article. Yes, I do work at the television station, but as previously mentioned, this has gone through AfC and is not a deletion policy. You can see in Public-access_television that other public access stations, some with less notoriety and sources, have Wikipedia pages. I have not been the only one to edit the page and would not have done much editing if it weren't for the threats of deletion. The Boston Globe is far more than a simple "local source." It has the largest newsroom in the region and has been on the forefront of national stories such as the Pentagon Papers and abuse inside the Catholic church.. It seems most people understand that The Boston Globe is significant, the Boston/New England Emmys are significant, and NewTV is significant, aside from one user with some sort of vendetta. Hopefully this information is helpful. Without threats of deletion, I will not edit the page. JLatNewtonTV (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I hate to tell you, but you're recollection is wrong, according to the article history, you did create the article. Also, we are not debating the notability of the Boston Globe. Just because the Globe is a notable newspaper does not mean every story it prints in its local section is also notable. If your tv station was that notable, it would have some type of coverage outside of the local Boston area.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Asserting that the coverage is in the "local section" shows that you have not read the cited articles. (come are in local, some are in the general edition.) Also, page creators are permitted to participate and iVote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Another strawman's argument, no one said he or she couldn't vote. I was just pointing out that given this talk page, it's hard to believe that he or she forgot they wrote the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep qualified under gng DocumentError (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2018 (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.