Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Language of Business (TV Series)

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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Language of Business (TV Series)[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced and advertorially toned article about a television series produced by a single independent television station. There's exactly zero reliable source coverage about the show cited here; of the seven "references" quoted here, four are primary sources, and the three that are reliable sources all entirely fail to contain even a glancing mention of this show's existence, but are instead being used in a fashion best described as "hey, this other media outlet wrote about this business trend [insert source about that other media outlet writing about that trend] just like something The Language of Business covered [insert no source about The Language of Business covering it at all]." As always, a television show is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists; reliable source coverage about it must be present to support inclusion, but nothing like that has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there doesn't seem to be much in the way of any reliable sources that have actually covered this show. The tone also seems to suggest that the article simply exists to promote the show, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. There's nothing significant enough about the show to merit even a mention at WBIN-TV (the station that airs the show), much less its own article. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 2 other sources discussing the show:

https://plus.google.com/+Radioentrepreneurs/posts/PE5LqReTER6

http://www.founderswire.com/the-coaches/what-ive-learned-about-business-being-a-tv-show-host/

It is advertised on WBIN's programming guide and also referenced on several other public access stations in 24 states across the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstoller (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Google+ post does not support notability as it's social media and not a reliable source. An article written by a host of the TV series on a press release platform does not support notability, as topics are not allowed to write themselves into Wikipedia. Inclusion in the host station's programming guide, or on the website of another station that carries it, does not support notability as those are primary sources. Reliable and notability-supporting referencing in a Wikipedia article is real media coverage about the topic in an unaffiliated source, and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wcquidditch: Thank you for your reply. Let me give a few bullets of background, please: 1) We have gone through multiple revisions with Wikipedia, including my jumping on forums to ensure we're not being promotional. I have enough experience with Wikipedia, etc. and am trying to be 125% respectful of netiquette and content. 2) This is 95% an all volunteer team. It's been a 3-year project and we are honored to now be on commercial TV. This has *never* been a money making endeavor... just so everything is clear in terms of intentions. 3) This just arrived this morning and was *not* authored by me: http://www.founderswire.com/the-coaches/boston-prof-turns-tv-pro-with-language-of-business/ Hopefully this will qualify as a bona fide source 4) We are very appreciative of the offer to be on Wikipedia and would appreciate your further consideration, please.

Sincerely,

Greg Stoller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gstoller (talk • contribs) 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That new link is still not a reliable source, as it's still a promotional platform to which anybody can submit content about anything they want. The fact that you were the writer of the first Founderswire link was not the only reason I said that link wasn't acceptable sourcing; as I already noted, it's a user-generated "crowdsourced content" site that can be used to distribute PR materials, not a real, well-established or reputable media outlet (the fact that the link just happened to arrive as brand new content this morning, for example, says volumes: it exists because you or somebody else associated with the show put it there this morning to create a new "source" for this article.) Wikipedia is not a free PR/advertising platform in which any topic, volunteer-based organization or otherwise, is automatically entitled to have an article just because it exists — an article has to be earned on the basis of reliable source coverage which verifies a specific claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NMEDIA, and a topic cannot get itself in the door by creating and press-releasing its own "coverage" about itself. And you claim to have "enough experience with Wikipedia", yet you don't know that you have to post new comments to this discussion at the bottom of the page, not the top? Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is Avi from Israel. I don't use Wikipedia so don't have an account. But I do teach business. Why can't you leave this person / show alone? I follow it for 3 years. They're all volunteers and while I do not know host I know several people who do. Heard he's very honorable, hardworking guy. He keeps replying trying to help you out and trying to do right thing. I Googled this Founderwire and it's not crowdsourcing. Owner used to be a journalist for boston newspaper. It's private company. Host (Stoller) has been quoted in newspaper like over 75 times and has separately written his own business articles. My students learn lot from this show. That's enough proof for me. I was looking up something on the show and see this. Please leave site up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.2.147 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First: new comments go at the bottom of the page if they're not a reply to a prior comment, not just any random place in the entire discussion that you want to add a new comment. Secondly: journalists can and do cross the thin line from journalism to PR work all the time, so the fact that Founderwire's owner used to write for a newspaper in Boston does not, in and of itself, make Founderwire a reliable source: the purpose and structure of Founderwire itself make that determination, not the owner's past employment history, and the purpose and structure of Founderwire is to serve as a press-release distribution platform. Thirdly: people and things get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of media coverage, not by getting quoted in coverage where they're not the subject or by being the author of media content. Finally: I don't believe for a second that you weren't asked to come vote, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Articles are kept or deleted based on the arguments advanced by established Wikipedians in accordance with our policy requirements, and an AFD discussion cannot be derailed by an organized campaign of editors with no prior history of contributing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not owe anything an article just because its founder is a nice guy — a Wikipedia article is earned on the basis of reliable source coverage about the topic in sources independent of that topic's own PR materials about itself, and if coverage that meets our reliable sourcing standards doesn't exist then a Wikipedia article doesn't get to exist either. We're an encyclopedia, not a free advertising platform. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, bottom of page. But I did not appreciate you comment. I not asked to do anything by nobody. I was just online on this site. I don't know what Wikipedian is but I have honor myself! Rude to suggest otherwise. I now help to find reliable sources to end this debate. Enough! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.74.193 (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Amir from Israel, too. I have never met Stoller or anyone else with this show. I just like it. No one asked me to comment but I will plan to help, too, and find some sources. It's a good, educational program. If need be, I will register for Wikipedia, too with account.

Delete. Based on the information provided here, clear promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 28 August 2016 (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.