Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pritzker Military Presents

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.

Pritzker Military Presents

Pritzker Military Presents (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)

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets
  WP:BEFORE here, as the first page of a Google search brings up pages supporting those claims. The mischaracterisation of Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker is outrageous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: That quote starts with the word "Generally" which you have omitted from your rendition, Pigsonthewing, meaning that isn't an open and shut case. The policy also includes "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone", to which I point out (again) the glaring omission from the article of ANY citation except for those from its own website and IMDb content (mindful that IMDb content can be user-generated). In other words, your argument on the face does NOT solve the notability issue. Nor does it address the
    WP:PROMOTIONAL nature of the article, especially since it is supported by the museum's own WikiProject. What other organization in the world has its own WikiProject?!?!?! Normal Op (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • "What other organization in the world has its own WikiProject?!?!?!". Dozens, possibly hundreds. There is nothing promotional about the article; it contains bare factual statements of the type common - and welcome - in Wikipedia. Your nomination rationale, as well as lacking WP:BEFORE, is apparently based on fundamental misunderstandings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh, Wikipedia:GLAM, that's a new one on me. Learn something new every day. Normal Op (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question: Is there any desire to reconsider this AFD based on learning more about Wikipedia:GLAM? KConWiki (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: I struck my objection to GLAM project in the nomination text. There remains the problem that there are ZERO secondary source citations in the article showing this topic is notable. Fix that, show me that the topic/article is notable by your actions, not simply your words, and I will consider your request. Normal Op (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: Thank you for your response and thank you for your reconsideration regarding the GLAM question. I have found several references to this television program that might be of help, including one from the U.S. Strategic Command, one from the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, and one from the American Battlefields Trust. The most interesting one I found (though this would raise questions of
              citogenesis were we to try to use it in the article) was a chapter in the book Leveraging Wikipedia: Connecting Communities of Knowledge that was specifically about the Pritzker Museum & Library's experiences with having a Wikipedia GLAM project. (This book has been on my to-read list for a while, but I have not yet gotten to it.) KConWiki (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • If those are relevant and appropriate, then you should edit the article. Normal Op (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Deletion proposals do not stand or fall on whether someone edits the article (something you could do, and should have done before nominating this article), but whether sources exist. You could do the right thing and withdraw this one, which will never succeed, now, to save other people their time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  π, ν) 00:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Why can stations located in a city not be regional? Where would you expect regional stations to be based? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their quote is from Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Programming. Normal Op (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Airing on three stations owned by the same group in the same city is not a regional network. So
      π, ν) 22:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep: As per the Lead, it meets
  WP:RPRGM. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2020 (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.