Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 CW affiliation realignment

Add links
Source: 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. I don't see a consensus here in this discussion. But discussion on possible Merges can continue on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 CW affiliation realignment

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

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)

Fails

WP:UNDUE. The context of this could easily be fit into the main article on The CW itself. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

@Sammi Brie @Nathan Obral @Wcquidditch @Mvcg66b3r @JJ2104 @BlueboyLINY @Esolo5002 @TheCatLife @Vrgin X With all due respect... Is all this necessary??? It's NOT like I made this stuff up out of thin air... I added multiple citations to the source material... I provided links... It's its own article for a reason... To outline said events and easy for one to find rather than such other articles for this information... I created this article to focus solely on these details... PLEASE DO NOT DELETE!!! It is also UNFAIR that my edits are being reverted for providing more detailed information... I NEVER claimed this was original research... That last claim is FALSE... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 13:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your protestations but the article and it’s contents could simply be summarized into a single paragraph in the CW’s main article. Maybe even two paragraphs if you’re generous. But it doesn’t merit a separate article. This was nowhere near the level of the 1994–1996 United States broadcast television realignment, it was a (mostly clean) series of switches in nine markets. That’s it. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 22:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, it wasn't as crazy as the 1994–1996 United States broadcast television realignment which locally turned the (former) local NBC affiliate to a Fox Station, it (the CW affiliation realignment) could easily be turned to a paragraph. So, I do say, Merge. Mer764Wiki (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again… IF it has an article of its own it’s so that people don’t have to scroll down as much or scramble larger articles looking for that information… PLEASE understand ME when I say that I’m just making it easier for people… There already exists articles of lesser importance than this… I’m NOT saying this is the most important article but it’s still noteworthy since this was a nationwide matter… Deletion or merger with other articles is HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED… CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 09:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I said before, It wasn't as crazy the mess that happened when Fox gained the NFL rights which means, you don't HAVE to make it a whole big article, you could make it a paragraph or two on the CW article with no problem. Mer764Wiki (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose I run into this problem later on... I've been in situations in the past where I've added facts, sentences or even whole paragraphs with links and citations only to have them deleted and scrubbed after other users reverted edits back to previous versions... I can't win at all!!! I'm starting to get very annoyed, frustrated and angry... 😡😡😡 CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 14:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was NOT easy to create that article... It still took ME hours to finish... A lot of edits and creations I feel are bring reverted or deleted UNJUSTLY... I'm getting the impression that it's predatory and discriminatory... As long as I'm NOT providing false information, it SHOULD be allowed... WE SHOULD NOT even be having this discussion... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 14:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm losing it, WE COULD MERGE THE ARTICLE TO THE CW ARTICLE, WE AREN'T BEING UNFAIR TO YOU, WE JUST DON'T THINK IT'S AS CRAZY AS THE 1994-1996 REALIGNMENT, FOR PETE'S SAKE, Stop having this battle, jeez... Mer764Wiki (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It took years for me, with some assistance from Sammi Brie, to finish 1989 South Florida television affiliation switch. The reason why it remains as an article, and was elevated to Good Article status, was because it depicted a clearly notable series of events that were a deeply complicated series of transactions and affiliation switches tied to one television station sale.
Despite all of your haranguing, pleading,
borderline canvassing and yelling at us (via bolded text and hitting the caps lock) over this deletion/merger request, it continues to fail to justify why this merits an article in its own right and should not a part of The CW rephrased to meet encyclopedic standards. Point blank, this article fails standards set up by the community, not one or two editors. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 17:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yea, agreed. Sorry if screaming wasn't a good idea, I was just fed up with him. Mer764Wiki (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry... But I'm NOT screaming... It's just a custom of mine's to put certain words and expressions in bold text for added emphasis... That's all... I'm just stressed and frustrated that my contributions are being discredited, discarded and taken for granted... Why am I even here then IF everything I write comes to question NO MATTER WHAT!?!? The 2001 Vancouver TV realignment has its own article and that was just one market... We're talking about nine different markets nationwide with eight of them involving CBS-owned stations... I still think everyone's rushing to judgment... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 18:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All caps and boldened text imply screaming or yelling by the poster. Even if I take your claim at face value, it’s still not helping your cause as to why this article should not be merged into another article or deleted. That’s not how Wikipedia works. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 19:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you Mer764Wiki, are fed up with ME and I have done NOTHING wrong!?!? What did I do to you personally!?!? Don't I have a right to express my concerns!?!? CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 18:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to get angry, I literally don't want any harm Mer764Wiki (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mer764Wiki @Sammi Brie @Nathan Obral Right now... I'm just disappointed and hurt by everyone's lack of appreciation for my efforts and concerns... Even IF I merge the material, how do I word it all properly!?!? CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 18:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Vancouver thing was one article cause it had unexpected changes on the Vancouver, BC and the Victoria, BC market, meanwhile, the thing about the CW was a mostly clean swap between, yes, 9 markets, but it wasn't as chaotic. I'm not disappointing you, It's just, we don't need to put it in much detail. That's all. Mer764Wiki (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mer764Wiki @Nathan Obral @Sammi Brie Why am I wasting my time then!?!? I'm unappreciated and you all are too strict... I can't please anybody... You're all silencing and judging me... My efforts were in vain... Nothing of what I do or say will convince you... And you didn't even bother to answer my question either... Where was the help in all this!?!? 🏳🏳🏳 CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 19:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, your histrionics and irrational behavior on a very trivial matter like an article deletion/merge request is very concerning and crossing more than a few lines. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 19:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mer764Wiki @Nathan Obral @Sammi Brie By the way... That question was... How am I supposed to word the details properly if I were to merge everything!?!? And what's to stop me from believing and thinking that such material will be reverted and deleted afterwards!?!? I speak from experience because it has happened to me before... What do you have to say about that!?!? CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 19:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is
not a possessive tool. It is a community project. If you want to do stuff that you can claim ownership on, have at it on a fanwiki, a blog or a personal website. But it is inherently wrong to claim ownership of pages or content on something that is easily available for anyone to read, edit or display elsewhere
.
Even if you specifically merged the material into
WP:TVS is a thing to begin with. We debate and form consensuses. We work as a team to make the articles in the subject matter better. No one goes it alone. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 19:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Sammi Brie @Mer764Wiki @Nathan Obral You're not telling me anything with the last reply... I never claimed ownership of anything... Nor did I ever claim it as a possessive site... Please do not put words in my mouth... The lack of appreciation and understanding offends me... There are so many sections and paragraphs in the main page that I would not know where to add them... I give up... You'll overrule anyway without anyone's approval... From now on moving forward, I'm going to think that every article I create for Wikipedia and every edit (big and small) that I make will immediately be discarded and deleted without consideration for the effort of the person and without any display of appreciation for said efforts... I'm done... Proceed with deletion because you're going to anyways... I just feel unappreciated... I'm sorry I even bothered going through the effort... I would not have even published the article if I knew that it was going to be subject such immediate, significant scrutiny... 🏳🏳🏳🏳 CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 20:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, reread your prior comments. “all that I have done” … “my work will be in vain” … “if I were to merge everything” … “if everything I write”
Despite what you claim, you have repeatedly claimed ownership of the article and are treating this process, which is how these are always handled, as a deeply personal attack against yourself and akin to a persecution. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 20:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Let's pull back for a bit and explain the issues at play.
  • The three comparable articles—1989 South Florida television affiliation switch, 1994–1996 United States broadcast television realignment, and 2001 Vancouver TV realignment—are topics with wider repercussions, larger networks involved, and much more coverage in the media.
  • WP:SNG
    notes, articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found. The contents of this are better covered in The CW. In fact, I'll even write the paragraph right here (using the press release-heavy refs from the original):
  • Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I put the paragraph in The CW Article? Mer764Wiki (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the sources as well? (I forgot that part) Mer764Wiki (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mer764Wiki Again... So many sections and paragraphs... Where!?!? CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 20:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of the History section of the article. If that helps :) Mer764Wiki (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mer764Wiki @Nathan Obral @Sammi Brie I'm done talking about this... All of my reasoning was not good enough for anybody... My work was in vain... I'm not getting anywhere with this... I'm the minority here... I can see that I am not going to be appreciated for the efforts and trying to be helpful... I'm sorry that I even bothered anybody with this... Why am I wasting my time here!?!? Nothing of what I do is easy but nobody is seeing that... For the last time, I am done... 🏳🏳🏳🏳 CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 20:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re talking in circles, saying practically the same thing over and over, and it’s not helping your cause. Articles are not kept based on how much people stomp their feet (metaphorically) and pout and be all despondent, saying “all my work is in vain and you all don’t appreciate me” repeatedly. I got the hint the first time and you don’t need to repeatedly tag us in these comments; personally, I find it rather rude. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 20:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nathan Obral Well then... Consider this... This discussion is over... I never tried to be rude or mean to anyone but I'm tired and frustrated that there was a rush to judgment here... For the last time, you do whatever you want... I give up... I'm walking away from this now out of respect for everyone here before I take the matter more personal than I already have... 🏳🏳🏳🏳 CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 20:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I told you not to tag me, and yet you did to say once again the same thing you’ve already said over and over again on this page. Please do not tag me again after I specifically asked you not to. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 20:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologize to everyone... I just wanted to be heard... But I am ending the discussion and letting everybody go about their own... Maybe next time, I'll either suggest an article or seek approval... Goodbye... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 20:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, you just have to realize that we can put a paragraph or two, about the 2023 affiliation changes in The CW article and it isn't bad. Yea it's confusing, however, you can't try to talk us into keeping it, we may (probably will) merge it to The CW article. Just, newt time, don't be rude, and don't tag me, I'm tired of that Mer764Wiki (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only tagged you all because I did not know if you would receive it or not... Do not assume that I'm being rude... It's not intentional and it's not my fault... I give up... I never tried to be mean or rude... But I have taken the matter so personal... I cannot carry on... I'm done... I'm done... I'm done... 🏳🏳🏳🏳 CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 20:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I think the article is well-cited and to be honest, Nexstar is trying to make it on par with the Big Four networks. It could be a turning point for the station much like Fox getting the rights to the NFL was for it. Jgera5 (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge for now - Per Sammi Brie. The article can always be restored if and when the merged content overwhelms the parent article, and it's if the realignment is well-cited as a turning point, via a split discussion. (Please note that I will not respond directly to
    WP:ANI.) BilCat (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Mods - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    How much more can I do or say!?!? Padding it with extra words may backfire too... I don't know... I have nothing else... Please refer to my "closing remarks"... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 21:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't need to reply here, so please stop doing that. Assume I've read your "closing comments", which I have. All new articles have to go through a review process, and an AFD is one of the possible outcomes of that. It's not personal, and it's not about your time and effort. It's about whether a topic has enough independent coverage in reliable sources to warrant a separate article. That's all it is about. That said, an AFD can be a highly emotional process to go through, especially if a person has never been through one before. If this is your first, then your reaction is understandable. The best advice is for you to let the process process play out until it's closed, and not to respond to anyone here anymore unless you're asked some specific questions. BilCat (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rice, Lynette (May 5, 2023). "Eight CBS Stations To Ditch CW And Go Independent This Fall". Deadline. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  2. ^ "Nexstar Television Stations in Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Tampa to Become Affiliated with the CW Network on September 1". Nexstar Media Group. June 14, 2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  3. ^ "Mission Broadcasting To Acquire WADL-TV Detroit From Adell Broadcasting". Mission Broadcasting, Inc. broadcastone. May 18, 2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  4. ^ "Assignments". Licensing and Management System. Federal Communications Commission. May 17, 2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  5. ^ "The CW Network And Hearst Television Expand And Extend Affiliation Partnership". Nexstar Media Group. August 1, 2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  6. ^ "The CW Network and Gray Television Expand and Extend Affiliation Partnership". Nexstar Media Group. August 30, 2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  7. ^ "The CW Network and Sinclair Expand and Extend Affiliation Partnership". Nexstar Media Group, Inc. August 31, 2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  8. ^ "Nexstar's KAUT-TV in Oklahoma City To Become CW Network Affiliate on September 1". Nexstar Media Group, Inc. August 31, 2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023.

CLOSING REMARKS... I never claimed ownership of anything... Yes, I wrote it... How else would it have appeared!?!? I always thought tagging someone was the only way that a person would reply... I did not come here to make enemies nor did I come here with the purpose of intentionally and maliciously instigate a hostile situation... I just wanted to be heard and to be allowed to publish and edit on Wikipedia like everybody else and for my work to be appreciated like everyone else's... We cannot continue looking at these discussions one-dimensionally anymore... I really hoped for a clear and viable solution... There's a finer line between what contributions and edits are acceptable and what are not that I personally failed to consider and realize... If, where, how and why I went wrong, I'm open for further discussion, but on my talk page... I want to apologize to all for having run everyone involved with this discussion "through the ringer"... I did not plan on being so personal and upset about it... But I just want whatever I contribute to be treated equally and fairly like everyone else's... Understand!?!? CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 14:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: Subject has good enough sourcing in the article to pass
    WP:GNG as it currently stands. While this article isn't long per se, that isn't a reason by itself for a merge. Some minor cleanup is needed, but that is not what an AfD is for. User:Let'srun 21:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't mean to prolong this AFD but I saw the choices as No Consensus or relist for another week so that's what I'm choosing to do. Maybe some of these comments could be hatted if no one objects to that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: The above arguments can be based.--Jasulan.T TT me 13:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge: The current sources are mostly press releases with two Deadline articles. I've seen little evidence that there is widespread reliable sources discussing this. That being said 10 news stations in fairly big markets changing affiliations is somewhat noteworthy. If someone could find extended reliable coverage I would change my vote to keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note one other thing. It is possible that this article could be expanded to include several television stations changing affiliations due to the acquisition of local sports rights. See stations in Phoenix and Las Vegas. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This subject has received additional coverage not currently in the article, some of which have mentioned the local sports angle you referenced: [[1]][[2]][[3]]. Let'srun (talk) 15:35, 12 September 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/2023_CW_affiliation_realignment&oldid=1206284514"