Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selective TV, Inc.

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---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selective TV, Inc.[edit]

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

Are TV stations eligible for speedy? I think I'd rather have a consensus deletion. delete UtherSRG (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As author of the page, allow me to make the case for keeping the article. The FCC does have a record of this ownership group and the several stations it owns. I posted it as a summary article due in part that the individual stations probably would not have enough individual information between them to write substantive articles for each one in their own right, but TV stations, since they are FCC-licensed, are generally recognized as being notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Not to delve too much into informal "tests," but the very similar UHF-TV Inc.'s notability has not been challenged. I thank you for moving this to AFD because I think that far too often administrators jump the gun on speedy deletion requests as soon as an article gets posted. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alexandria, Minnesota#Television (though there, it could use a clean up to sound a tad less spammy). Buddy431 (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would recommend finding some more sources, but this setup (a company that broadcasts cable channels over the air) seems unusual enough to warrant coverage of the company. And here's one source that could be added to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I agree with Metro that it is an unusual set up, it apparently isn't so unusual that it has gathered any significant coverage outside of its own local area in the claimed 30 years of operation. Could find nothing in book sources, no real news sources, and existence and licensing alone do not make it notable, IMHO. Without the significant coverage, it may be interesting, but not notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:17, 31 May 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.