Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selective TV, Inc. (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 redirect‎ to Alexandria, Minnesota#Television. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective TV, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Subject lacks the necessary coverage to meet the WP:NCORP. A 2010 AfD closed as no consensus but notability thresholds have changed significantly in the past 14 years. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Minnesota. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Alexandria, Minnesota#Television: this is probably the best available alternative to deletion here (the most substantive content, the table of stations, is basically already there), though given that this article is about a non-profit corporation and not necessarily the stations themselves I do not oppose outright deletion as a NCORP failure either. Even the long-abolished separate and looser inclusion standards for broadcast stations eventually frowned upon giving relays of other stations or national services (which is all Selective TV's stations do) articles for lack of separate notability. The "keep"s from 2010 don't appear to be what would be considered as "policy-guideline based" today, largely relying on the "FCC-licensed broadcast stations are presumed notable" stance that was finally put to bed after this 2021 RfC that pivoted to requiring significant coverage — but as this article really falls under NCORP rather than GNG, it falls under stricter standards that don't count purely-local or most trade coverage toward notability (and the lone "delete" from the 2010 nomination, noting the lack of SIGCOV, does express a view that is more in line with 2024 standards than was usually seen in the broadcasting topic area 14 years ago). In the end, this is a remnant of the looser standards of 2010 — and the "no consensus" suggests that any perceived "notability" was the bare minimum at most. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:35, 23 June 2024 (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.