Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Washington Television

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.

University of Washington Television

University of Washington Television (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)

An unsourced article about a former public access station that is now only available on the internet. The person who deproded this claimed that he found plenty of sources by doing a Google search, but I can't find anything except for the school newspaper and the school's website.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(there's a halo...) 03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(there's a halo...) 03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• This is one of a series of AfDs on public television stations by this Nom. Rusf10, I repeat the question that I haveasked before, do you know how to run new archive searches or have access to a news archive? I ask again because, like several other stations tha twe have kept, this one was a bigger deal back a decade or two ago. There were stories like [UWTV creates static] 2002 Puget Sound Business Journal, about for-profit stations accusing UWTV of unfair competition because it used publicly funded equipment to compete for content production contracts. there were other stories on that conflict. And quite a lot of regional coverage of the station's programs, feature stories like " UWTV brings Islam home to Seattle," "NOW YOU CAN TURN TO TV FOR HELP WITH THE INTERNET, and so forth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There still are only two sources both of them local. This is an organization, so

Rusf10 (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

In fact, I edit at a lot of AfDs, and spend a lot of time improving content on articles at AfD. But, yes, I have noticed that you nominate a lot of articles on topics like

WP:RS discussing a church's building do contribute to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)".E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep -- per User:E.M.Gregory. Contra to nom's claims, two sources is plenty to meet GNG. And it's extraordinarily disingenuous to dismiss these sources as "local." The University of Washington is in Seattle. Seattle's CSA has a population of 4.5 million people. This is bigger than many sovereign nations. It's roughly the size of Ireland. Will nominator proceed to dismiss all sources from Ireland as "local" and therefore not useful for establishing notability? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not disingenuous! Did you even look at the articles? For example [4] What does it say above the title of the article? "Local News" Yes, the Seattle Times has a local section for their local audience. It is not the same as if the story had appeared on the Front Page. Stories labeled as "local news" do not meet

Rusf10 (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

First of all, the

WP:AUD, contradicts you, as it says explicitly that "regional" news can be used to establish notability. News that's labeled "local" in an area of 4.7 million people is regional or national most places in the world. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2018 (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.