Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/York@54 (2nd nomination)

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

York@54

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

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

A channel that only ever operated on a series of Restricted Service Licences fails to meet the WP:GNG. Deleted on AfD in 2007 with an article that sounds like it was quite similar to this one with just three references. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG. Of the three sources in the ref list, one is an archived primary source from the station itself thus not independent, while another is a dead link that even if it were WP:V, appears to have been self published and unreliable. The third is an editorial piece from a local paper that discussing the case for a community digital TV station broadcasting local content. It makes reference to the subject of the article briefly. This is in the form of comments by the stations manager that "it is unlikely many people watch or even know of the station’s existence. It is mainly now a ‘toe-hold’ so that the company can take advantage of any changes in TV broadcasting". While perhaps more than a trivial mention, this is hardly significant coverage and somewhat ironically leans towards arguing the that the station is not notable. Dfadden (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2022 (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.