![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Just so you all know - we are a fully affiliated NaSTA station now. So I added us to the Wikipedia Page. Please dont delete us, we are officially joined now!!
Sorry, 87.127.73.46
STOP DELETING THIS. MattNIan qualified as a full station and paid full affiliation fees, and get this, even won three awards. So to say they were not part is just silly, they were part, and even won some. Why you reference a Google Cached page THAT WAS NEVER UPDATED FROM THE 2005 SEASON as your reasoning for removing them is insane. Leave it buddy.
first please place new comments under ones previously made second please sign your comments. now on the matter you raised if you can provide a more recent verifibility reliably sources, then please do so, also i would remind that you should not write about yourself and wait until such time as some one else feels you are notable, particularly in the case of someone who has been repeatedly warned for vandalism. Sherzo 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
--Reply--Not been accused of vandalism, ever, if have on this IP, its a shared work IP, so dont accuse me...And apart from photos of ian and matt at the event with awards in hand, and the actual awards themselves, there are no other items of proof because NaSTA 07's online work was virtually non existant so no proof ever went online because of "website lost passwords"
What do you want? A reference to an online photo? Its obvious to me you just dont like seeing that station on that list, everyone who attended NaSTA knows that station attended
well i suggest you register for an account or else you will be labelled as such. as for assertion of membership i have no personally feelings either way, however this is an encyclopedia which means you need a reliable source to back it. Sherzo 13:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Which part of this article are people unsure about? Vanky 22:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not sure but I'm guessing it will be the formation date 83.67.43.64 03:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you look at the NaSTA website, it seems as if nobody knows the exact formation date... Vanky 12:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'd like to have a stab at a major article rewrite over the next few days, because (as evidenced by the deletion debate) this article doesn't really do NaSTA justice. I doubt that many/any of the station articles themselves will avoid deletion, so I suggest a section on each affiliate station, and a little about the UK student TV scene in general wouldn't go amiss. Tomisaac 22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, we now have an infobox and a little more flesh at the start. I've used the 'company' infobox, doesn't quite fit but does the job.temporarily.
To do list:
Categorise the article
Summary of each station
Get rid of the long 'History' table of dates.
Rewrite 'Conference and NaSTA Awards' in encyclopedical style.
Rewrite 'History', or junk it if there's really no reliable information. Tomisaac 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I have one suggest have you thought about creating your own wiki? then each station, show etc could have its own page, you could design it on the IMDB lines. Sherzo 23:35, 03 December 2006 (UTC)
who are the founding members of the organisation, the earliest website on archive.org was for december 96, however its listed as Nasta 95, and the member stations then were, BTV, CTV, GUST, GTV, LUST, Nexus, STOIC, YSTV.are these the found members?
What does NaSTA actually stand for?
I think this page solves that particular mystery Vanky 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arwel_Parry/archive_3#Student_TV_memories
Just had a look over the article other than a few g&s mistakes, and few stations POV pushes, it looks good you should be proud. The only changes i think you need, would be to add blurbs for the other affiliated stations. Other than that well done! Sherzo 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely LS:TV are the best broadcaster 2006-2007, as 2007-2008 hasn't been awarded yet. They have been awarded for their production in the last year, not what they're going to produce.
-- Peternewman 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Despite the round of deletions a few months back, some stations have either still got articles (GUST, LooseTV), or have new articles (XTV). None of the deleted stations have had articles re-created.
These articles were not linked from the NaSTA page, so I've done them using the 'Main article' notation. By the way, I did not create or edit the XTV article, and I'm going to abstain on saying whether it should exist.
Please do not create advertisement or un notable articles its damages wikipedia. Sherzo 15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
an AfD would remove the page i am currently of the mind that they are useful as redirected and given the improved quality of this article it is more than capable of carry GUST information in a single paragraph without need for a forked article, {GUST programmes etc are not notable} however i coming to increasingly believe that all the less notable stations should be rolled into on general section since they're are essential the same thing at different unis there is no real need for a {seperate in places quite POV} section on each Sherzo 01:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm think more and more that this article should be rewritten, to actually explain how student tv in the UK is made rather than rattle off a list of station that basically do the same thing with differing degrees of success at different university. Also possibly renamed to student tv in the uk with a section on nasta as there appears to be as many student tv station out of nasta as in it, so its hardly representative of student tv in the UK as a whole. though i am finding it difficult to find any current notable sources without which it maybe the whole article should be deleted or cut down to what is actually verifible. Sherzo 05:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any of the stations individually are notable, as a collective they're notable it the same way that youtube is notable but its individual users aren't. However i think the article misrepresents what Nasta, it lacks sources, and there as many UK student tv station outside it as inside. i think if the article was changed to focusing on student tv the history development and notable people who have been involved in student tv. A section on Nasta , but i don't think each station needs its own section since other than locality very little changes between station in terms of programming or style. out of the options 2 is the probably the best though in regards to merging the individuals stubs i doubt there notable to be on such pages as for GUST it was kept by consensus however the article does not reference its one claim on notability and lacks any information on its history and simple use the unsubstantiated claim of being first as a way to shoehorn an article on the current station and its programming rather that why being first makes it notable. Sherzo 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think an overall article would be both more representative and easy to research & verify. on the matter of precedent though i feel its better every article be judged individually, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LUST is the already used precedent. I have put a request for comment to get more input. Sherzo 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so are we doing a re-write or not? JMalky 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you have better access to material, can i suggest you and tomisaac start Sherzo 05:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that the this article shouldn't be removed until a new was is suuficiently developed, since i am relatively unbusy if you'd like to provide me with any useful resources on constructing this article, i could have a go at writing a first draft Sherzo 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've started something at a sub-page in my userspace which is still full of notes and tags, but it's a start. Feel free to have a go at it everybody! Tomisaac 13:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Just so you all know - we are a fully affiliated NaSTA station now. So I added us to the Wikipedia Page. Please dont delete us, we are officially joined now!!
Sorry, 87.127.73.46
STOP DELETING THIS. MattNIan qualified as a full station and paid full affiliation fees, and get this, even won three awards. So to say they were not part is just silly, they were part, and even won some. Why you reference a Google Cached page THAT WAS NEVER UPDATED FROM THE 2005 SEASON as your reasoning for removing them is insane. Leave it buddy.
first please place new comments under ones previously made second please sign your comments. now on the matter you raised if you can provide a more recent verifibility reliably sources, then please do so, also i would remind that you should not write about yourself and wait until such time as some one else feels you are notable, particularly in the case of someone who has been repeatedly warned for vandalism. Sherzo 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
--Reply--Not been accused of vandalism, ever, if have on this IP, its a shared work IP, so dont accuse me...And apart from photos of ian and matt at the event with awards in hand, and the actual awards themselves, there are no other items of proof because NaSTA 07's online work was virtually non existant so no proof ever went online because of "website lost passwords"
What do you want? A reference to an online photo? Its obvious to me you just dont like seeing that station on that list, everyone who attended NaSTA knows that station attended
well i suggest you register for an account or else you will be labelled as such. as for assertion of membership i have no personally feelings either way, however this is an encyclopedia which means you need a reliable source to back it. Sherzo 13:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Which part of this article are people unsure about? Vanky 22:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not sure but I'm guessing it will be the formation date 83.67.43.64 03:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you look at the NaSTA website, it seems as if nobody knows the exact formation date... Vanky 12:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'd like to have a stab at a major article rewrite over the next few days, because (as evidenced by the deletion debate) this article doesn't really do NaSTA justice. I doubt that many/any of the station articles themselves will avoid deletion, so I suggest a section on each affiliate station, and a little about the UK student TV scene in general wouldn't go amiss. Tomisaac 22:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, we now have an infobox and a little more flesh at the start. I've used the 'company' infobox, doesn't quite fit but does the job.temporarily.
To do list:
Categorise the article
Summary of each station
Get rid of the long 'History' table of dates.
Rewrite 'Conference and NaSTA Awards' in encyclopedical style.
Rewrite 'History', or junk it if there's really no reliable information. Tomisaac 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I have one suggest have you thought about creating your own wiki? then each station, show etc could have its own page, you could design it on the IMDB lines. Sherzo 23:35, 03 December 2006 (UTC)
who are the founding members of the organisation, the earliest website on archive.org was for december 96, however its listed as Nasta 95, and the member stations then were, BTV, CTV, GUST, GTV, LUST, Nexus, STOIC, YSTV.are these the found members?
What does NaSTA actually stand for?
I think this page solves that particular mystery Vanky 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arwel_Parry/archive_3#Student_TV_memories
Just had a look over the article other than a few g&s mistakes, and few stations POV pushes, it looks good you should be proud. The only changes i think you need, would be to add blurbs for the other affiliated stations. Other than that well done! Sherzo 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely LS:TV are the best broadcaster 2006-2007, as 2007-2008 hasn't been awarded yet. They have been awarded for their production in the last year, not what they're going to produce.
-- Peternewman 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Despite the round of deletions a few months back, some stations have either still got articles (GUST, LooseTV), or have new articles (XTV). None of the deleted stations have had articles re-created.
These articles were not linked from the NaSTA page, so I've done them using the 'Main article' notation. By the way, I did not create or edit the XTV article, and I'm going to abstain on saying whether it should exist.
Please do not create advertisement or un notable articles its damages wikipedia. Sherzo 15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
an AfD would remove the page i am currently of the mind that they are useful as redirected and given the improved quality of this article it is more than capable of carry GUST information in a single paragraph without need for a forked article, {GUST programmes etc are not notable} however i coming to increasingly believe that all the less notable stations should be rolled into on general section since they're are essential the same thing at different unis there is no real need for a {seperate in places quite POV} section on each Sherzo 01:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm think more and more that this article should be rewritten, to actually explain how student tv in the UK is made rather than rattle off a list of station that basically do the same thing with differing degrees of success at different university. Also possibly renamed to student tv in the uk with a section on nasta as there appears to be as many student tv station out of nasta as in it, so its hardly representative of student tv in the UK as a whole. though i am finding it difficult to find any current notable sources without which it maybe the whole article should be deleted or cut down to what is actually verifible. Sherzo 05:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any of the stations individually are notable, as a collective they're notable it the same way that youtube is notable but its individual users aren't. However i think the article misrepresents what Nasta, it lacks sources, and there as many UK student tv station outside it as inside. i think if the article was changed to focusing on student tv the history development and notable people who have been involved in student tv. A section on Nasta , but i don't think each station needs its own section since other than locality very little changes between station in terms of programming or style. out of the options 2 is the probably the best though in regards to merging the individuals stubs i doubt there notable to be on such pages as for GUST it was kept by consensus however the article does not reference its one claim on notability and lacks any information on its history and simple use the unsubstantiated claim of being first as a way to shoehorn an article on the current station and its programming rather that why being first makes it notable. Sherzo 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think an overall article would be both more representative and easy to research & verify. on the matter of precedent though i feel its better every article be judged individually, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LUST is the already used precedent. I have put a request for comment to get more input. Sherzo 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so are we doing a re-write or not? JMalky 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you have better access to material, can i suggest you and tomisaac start Sherzo 05:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that the this article shouldn't be removed until a new was is suuficiently developed, since i am relatively unbusy if you'd like to provide me with any useful resources on constructing this article, i could have a go at writing a first draft Sherzo 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've started something at a sub-page in my userspace which is still full of notes and tags, but it's a start. Feel free to have a go at it everybody! Tomisaac 13:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)