The result was delete. The "keep" opinions rely only on WP:RPRGM, which is not a policy or guideline and therefore not reflective of established projectwide consensus. Accordingly, the "keep" opinions must be given less weight than the "delete" opinions, which rely on WP:GNG, a widely accepted guideline. Sandstein 10:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Fails
WP:GNG. This
promotional article was written by at least three people who work for or are associated with the subject. The article's 127 citations consist solely of IMDb (unacceptable as a
user-generated website) and its own website pritzkermilitary.org (which is unacceptable as a
primary and a
self-published source). A
WP:BEFORE search is hindered by the enormous volume of advertising and cross-advertising for this subject, and I was unable to find a single article discussing the show itself or anything that would contribute towards establishing its notability. Per
What Wikipedia is not: it is not for advertising, marketing, a means of self-promotion, a catalog or directory, or a web hosting service — all of which this 'article' attempts to use Wikipedia for. There is a mention of this show in
Pritzker Military Museum & Library, but I fail to see why the entire series of episodes needs to be hosted on Wikipedia instead of its own website. Even the main article topic (
Pritzker Military Museum & Library) doesn't have much coverage. I notice there is even a wikiproject
Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker to coordinate the Pritzker promotions. Not sure that's acceptable in Wikipedia.
Normal Op (
talk)
09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
"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), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience."as indicated by the lede: "It airs on PBS channels WYCC, WTTW Channel 11, and WTTW-Prime Channel 11-2 weekly." There's a clear lack of WP:BEFORE here, as the first page of a Google search brings up pages supporting those claims. The mischaracterisation of Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker is outrageous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
"the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone", to which I point out (again) the glaring omission from the article of ANY citation except for those from its own website and IMDb content (mindful that IMDb content can be user-generated). In other words, your argument on the face does NOT solve the notability issue. Nor does it address the WP:PROMOTIONAL nature of the article, especially since it is supported by the museum's own WikiProject. What other organization in the world has its own WikiProject?!?!?! Normal Op ( talk) 23:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
"What other organization in the world has its own WikiProject?!?!?!". Dozens, possibly hundreds. There is nothing promotional about the article; it contains bare factual statements of the type common - and welcome - in Wikipedia. Your nomination rationale, as well as lacking WP:BEFORE, is apparently based on fundamental misunderstandings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope). I don't see the substantial coverage to justify a stand-alone article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions rely only on WP:RPRGM, which is not a policy or guideline and therefore not reflective of established projectwide consensus. Accordingly, the "keep" opinions must be given less weight than the "delete" opinions, which rely on WP:GNG, a widely accepted guideline. Sandstein 10:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Fails
WP:GNG. This
promotional article was written by at least three people who work for or are associated with the subject. The article's 127 citations consist solely of IMDb (unacceptable as a
user-generated website) and its own website pritzkermilitary.org (which is unacceptable as a
primary and a
self-published source). A
WP:BEFORE search is hindered by the enormous volume of advertising and cross-advertising for this subject, and I was unable to find a single article discussing the show itself or anything that would contribute towards establishing its notability. Per
What Wikipedia is not: it is not for advertising, marketing, a means of self-promotion, a catalog or directory, or a web hosting service — all of which this 'article' attempts to use Wikipedia for. There is a mention of this show in
Pritzker Military Museum & Library, but I fail to see why the entire series of episodes needs to be hosted on Wikipedia instead of its own website. Even the main article topic (
Pritzker Military Museum & Library) doesn't have much coverage. I notice there is even a wikiproject
Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker to coordinate the Pritzker promotions. Not sure that's acceptable in Wikipedia.
Normal Op (
talk)
09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
"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), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience."as indicated by the lede: "It airs on PBS channels WYCC, WTTW Channel 11, and WTTW-Prime Channel 11-2 weekly." There's a clear lack of WP:BEFORE here, as the first page of a Google search brings up pages supporting those claims. The mischaracterisation of Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker is outrageous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
"the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone", to which I point out (again) the glaring omission from the article of ANY citation except for those from its own website and IMDb content (mindful that IMDb content can be user-generated). In other words, your argument on the face does NOT solve the notability issue. Nor does it address the WP:PROMOTIONAL nature of the article, especially since it is supported by the museum's own WikiProject. What other organization in the world has its own WikiProject?!?!?! Normal Op ( talk) 23:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
"What other organization in the world has its own WikiProject?!?!?!". Dozens, possibly hundreds. There is nothing promotional about the article; it contains bare factual statements of the type common - and welcome - in Wikipedia. Your nomination rationale, as well as lacking WP:BEFORE, is apparently based on fundamental misunderstandings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope). I don't see the substantial coverage to justify a stand-alone article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)