Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TLV1

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TLV1

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:BROADCAST. Brand new station, created several days ago, using WP as an ad platform. Neither unique nor special in any way. Common as muck. Not even a large listening audience. scope_creep 15:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep: I disagree with the proposer, on each of her/his claims. This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance because it offers genuinely unique programming, as per W:N (broadcast media). There is no other radio station broadcasting current affairs programming, in English, from Israel. If that weren't enough, under separate standards, as a company, TLV1 is considered notable as it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources (because of its uniqueness), as per WP:CORP requirements, some of which are cited as references in the article. The assertion by User:Scope_creep that the station was created 'days ago', is also plain wrong. It was founded more than a year ago. I'd also like to see what your audience claim is based on. Back up your claims, please. Simply making assertions and presenting as them as facts, when you're clearly wrong on several points already, doesn't help your case.1-555-confide (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I should add, this is the proposer's second attempt to have the article deleted, after her/his initial attempt failed earlier today. How many times will we be forced to go through a proposed deletion process for this article, on this user's ill-researched whims? 1-555-confide (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. I almost missed this one, amongst her/his many other unsubstantiated claims and inaccuracies: the proposer asserts that the station is 'using WP as an ad platform'. I'm the article creator, and for the record, and I have no link with the subject, other than being a listener. 1-555-confide (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately -- and in defiance of WP:AGF, as well as of any evidence to support the allegation -- accusing article creators of COI violations seems to be something of a stock in trade of this nominator. Ravenswing 10:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Another ill-considered nomination by this nom, who's run up a spate of AfDs in recent days. The article is sourced from Haaretz and The Times of Israel, both reliable sources, and which meets WP:BROADCAST by way of satisfying that guideline's very first sentence. Given nom's blatant error in the founding of the station, his curious and unsupported assertions that the article was created for commercial purposes (did he even bother to look at the creator's edit history?) or that it lacks a listening audience, I've got to wonder what elements of WP:BEFORE he followed?
PS: When I first put this comment up, I thought the nom might be new at AfD. I am badly startled to find that he's been making AfD nominations for nine years. Ravenswing 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing, while echoing their concerns over the nom. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:34, 10 September 2014 (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.