Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) J947 02:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

The World Tomorrow (radio and 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)

This article has been the subject of some pretty bizarre argufying over the claim that the 2004 reboot is different. Looking into these claims, I checked the sources. Only one of them meets WP:RS, and it's an obituary of Art Gilmore that namechecks this subject. The other sources are either primary (e.g. trademark filings cited as sources for the existence of trademarks) or not independent, being affiliated with Herbert W. Armstrong. The sources do not establish WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I just did a search and found a few secondary sources for the Julian Assange TV show on Russia Today[1] and for Bruce McCall’s cover story in The New Yorker[2] but all the references to the show by the church seem to be from church publications. I am not seeing any independent evidence of notability. Plus, the article is a magnet for disputes after one or more church splits, each side claiming to be the true continuation of the original church and the original radio show. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - where appropriate - into the Armstrong article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Sadly, the only good way to take care of this dispute is to "send it to a nice farm". KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found some third-party coverage here and here and others through Google Books... I'm not saying that there's enough to meet notability guidelines (nor that there isn't), just noting the existence of such. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I grew up watching The World Tomorrow with Garner Ted Armstrong up in Montreal. This was may possibly be a notable show. I can find such book refs as this, this, this, this, this, and this -- all from page one of the Gbooks results. There's no shortage out there. I'm searching for "The World Tomorrow" + "Garner Ted Armstrong", btw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked at those references. They are the types of mention that WP:GNG says do not establish notability. You need to show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" means that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail. "Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention, which is what the sources you found (and which I had found when I did my search) contain. They do justify a prominent mention of The World Tomorrow on the Garner Ted Armstrong page, which we already have. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that taken as a whole, there's more than trivial coverage here. But the fact that program was clearly internationally syndicated -- since I watched here on a Montreal local station for years -- means that it meets WP:TVSERIES, as well: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)." Of course, the "network" would in this case not be literal, it would be some combination of individual stations in what must have been first-run syndication, but international in scope. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it was syndicated per se; it seems more like a show that would've simply purchased airtime, like a half-hour ad, and that puts a strain on its appearance in various markets as an indicator of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I hadn't considered that. It's quite possible I suppose, as part of the church's outreach. It aired on Sunday mornings. I'm moving to weak keep, above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at episodes of the current series bearing the name (I am among those unconvinced that it's the same show in a technical sense) on YouTube, I see that they are 28-minutes-and-some-seconds long... i.e., there's no room for ads in the middle of the episode. That means that they are almost certainly brokered programming; a current half-hour meant to have ad placement would be about 6 minutes shorter. From my very slight memories of the earlier version, it was likely the same. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who watched the show on the local station in Saskatoon, Canada, I can attest to the fact that I don't recall them ever having paid commercial ads within the show, just ads for World Tomorrow publication. However something that needs to be pointed out is at least in the 1970s Sunday-morning religious programming - at least on Canadian TV stations - never aired with regular advertising. I don't think the stations allowed it. So Day of Discovery, Rex Humbard, and any of the others that aired at that time aired without standard commercials. One other point: paid programming usually didn't warrant its own TV Guide listings (referring to the magazine), but World Tomorrow did, albeit it was identified as "Garner Ted Armstrong" as per the standard format where shows hosted by people were usually listed under the host's name (i.e. Johnny Carson, not "Tonight"). My vote on this is to keep though having just dipped my toe into this article there are definitely some edit war-related issues happening. 23skidoo (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly cannot speak to the specifics of the Canadian situation, brokered programming is the default for such broadcasts in the US; their regular presence in a time slot may be more what got them in the listings than the question of whether they were paid programming. (Certainly, we've had listings for things like Easy Money (TV series), a primetime series where an outside organization leased time from a network.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As NatGertler says I don't think this was syndicated. It was paid placement. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively an infomercial? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When a church buys air time, runs no commercials other than encouraging people to join the church. and the church just happens to teach "triple tithing" (giving 30% of your gross pretax income to the church)[3] I think "infomercial" is a fair description. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They could have made it look more like a normal show by instead running commercials for the Vegematic or the Pocket Fisherman during breaks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, but it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:GNG. I have seen claims by affiliated churches[4][5][6] and by a critic[7] that republican senator Bob Dole ordered preservation of the World Tomorrow television episodes in the Library of Congress, but I cannot find a reliable source confirming that claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I expect it's true, but not that impressive; that would seem like a politician writing a letter on behalf of a constituent/contributor. It's not on the same level of something being named to the American film preservation list or somesuch. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep User:Shawn in Montreal memory is reliable. This program was a bid deal back in the day. Editors have run into our endemic problem: searches fail to readily produce sources on stuff that happened before the internet. I am basing my keep on a paywalled Proquest news archive search. Paywalls contribute to WP's unfortunate presentism bias.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added 2 sources. Copious, reliable, in-depth sources come up on a news archive search of "The World Tomorrow" + Armstrong. An editor with access to a news archive and time could readily make this into a good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are those additions:[8] Because they are paywalled, I would ask E.M. Gregory to reproduce the wording where he believes that the requirements of WP:GNG have been met here ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..."). Reproducing such material is allowed under fair use. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I'm not against merging (I'm an inclusionist), merging this into an already large article about the author would be cramming too much into one small space. Easily notable: WP:RS. Even less-well-known authors are notable, so much more Armstrong.96.59.183.125 (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep somehow -- This seems to be the lead broadcast ministry of Armstrong, who was on the fringes between evangelical Christianity and heresy. Radio Church of God, which he established from this program, still exists (though renamed); that link is a redirect to Grace Communion International. If it is merged, that (rather than Armstrong) should be the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' Wow! It's pretty embarrassing when your program is more noteworthy than you. (And it would be kept, with you merging into it!) Ha ha hah... Well, I guess Armstrong isn't going to complain to much about it. In all seriousness, I like your logic: His program may be his identity, so maybe it should be kept, and him merged into it. But in any case, either he or his program should be kept. Maybe not both, though, since a redirect and/or reference could be used.96.59.169.231 (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2017 (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/The_World_Tomorrow_(radio_and_television)&oldid=1069077024"