Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECTV

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 delete and redirect to Ecuador TV. SpinningSpark 13:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ECTV

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

Non-notable city owned Cable access channel that broadcasts city council meetings amd high school games for a city with under 25,000 people. At best the channel might warrent a ssentence on the city's page. An attempt to redirect the title to notable Ecuador TV (an appropriate redirect as they use the same call sign) was reversed. Legacypac (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ecuador TV as the article is not a notable topic, but is a plausible search term, and that is a legitimate target. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For what it is worth, searching for ECTV in Evanston, Illinois seems to get more results at google, newspapers.com, etc than ECTV in Edwardsville, Illinois (this may be because Evanston is a college town and a Chicago suburb). But it happens that ECTV in Edmonton gets more results than Edwardsville (here it stands for Edmonton Chinese Television). Other prominent ECTVs include Escambia County Television (Florida), Eastern Connecticut Television, East Chicago Television, Elizabethtown College Television (Pennsylvania), and so on. Ecuador TV (whose acronym actually seems to be "EcTV") seems to get the most hits and to have the biggest marketing budget (these two things are correlated). I think Edwardsville's ECTV should be merged into the Edwardsville article (as one line in the media section), I don't see enough sourcing to write a NOR, NPOV article on it. I'm not sure if ECTV itself should point to Ecuador TV or become a disambiguation page - I would support a disambig if someone wanted to make it, but think the redirect works in the meantime as articles about the other ECTVs don't seem to exist. In my opinion, Escambia County Television, East Connecticut Television, and East Chicago Television all have fair cases for suitability in the encyclopedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I've added ECTV back into the Edwardsville article with a ref, so no merge is neccesary. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note related discussion User_talk:Rusf10#Please_do_not_delete_articles_out_of_process Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect to unrelated Ecuador TV- No sources in the article and a Google search doesn't show much either, just this [1] and a handful of articles from the local town paper. It exists, but nothing shows that it is notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, my !vote is to redirect ~~keeping~~ deleting the history. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the value in keeping any of the content here, but I'm okay with either redirect option.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the redirection had not been reversed, it would have been no problem, but now that we are here we should wipe out the temptation for someone to unredirect it. Legacypac (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

they would need consensus to restore it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sure but who is watching a redirect like this? Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point that. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding who watches a page like this: since July 2015 until the start of this AfD/redirect/whatever, this page got 3 views a day[2], was on less than 30 watchlists[3], had 2 (now 1) inbound link from article space, and zero edits total. So my guess is that if this page were unredirected and made into a page which doesn't meet our standards, it could take three years or more and 10,000+ page views before an editor takes action. The encyclopedia survived the last ten years with an article at ECTV that doesn't really meet our current standards. I think the hypothetical that it is un-redirected and isn't re-redirected isn't a serious enough risk to outweigh WP:PRESERVE. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:46, 14 March 2018 (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.