Talk:Student television in the United Kingdom/Archive 3

message: I recommend this be merged the main article is strong enough now that there is no real argument for any station to keep a seperate article. Sherzo 04:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for moving your comments, I was just trying to keep everything in the same place. Could you have a look at the old AfD debate? We fought hard for this article and convinced everyone that the station is indeed notable, given it's long history and the fact that it is the oldest student TV station in the UK, and oldest student-run station in the world. The NaSTA page does not contain sufficient information. If you still feel that the page isn't worthwhile, then could you nominate it for deletion? Surely it's better to do this by consensus. Can I also point out that I'm not a member of NaSTA, and that at any rate self promotion is not prohibited at all. It's just frowned upon. There's not meant to be any rules around here! JMalky 12:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I was a member of GUST when I was at university. I completely admit that the notability of the station is borderline, but then the criteria for 'notability' aren't unanimously agreed upon, are they? This isn't really the place for a debate about deletionism vs inclusionism, but I'd emplore you to give this article, and others like it, the benefit of the doubt. Student television is a field that's growing at an exponential rate (I can certainly show you 3rd party material to back that claim up!), and within that field GUST's notability is unquestionable. I'm sorry but I disagree with your point on the NaSTA article. I think it's still pretty poor. But more importantly, I think you misunderstand the relationship between GUST and NaSTA. NaSTA is not a governing body which GUST is subordinate to, rather it's an organisation it happens to be a member of. To say that the GUST article should be subsumed by the NaSTA article is like saying that the University of Glasgow article should be subsumed by the article for the lecturers union. It just doesn't follow. But at any rate, my arguments for keeping the article are first, its notability as the first of it's kind. Second, its incredible sucess in national competitions over the years. Third, the relatively recent decision in an AfD debate to keep it (which I know doesn't save the article forever, but it should be considered). And finally, its quality, which I think has to count for something. I can't provide you with any 3rd party sources that'd meet your criteria, and yes, my prior involement with the station has to be taken into account. If you'd still rather the page be deleted, I'd prefer that it be judged through a proper AfD debate, rather than your opinion vs mine. Agreed? JMalky 10:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think collectively student tv is notable but individually i doubt any of them would qualify. the point on Nasta do you have a source? since it certainly presents itself as the governing body as it has a constitution and the general tone with which it describes itself. Also if this is the case then why are there all those stubs on each station within the page? your comment on the lecturer's union is a strawman, more accurate would be to say the Glasgow U article be absorb into an article on universities in the UK. Do you have a source on it being the first? or is that just station/college lore? can you name the founder?. This incredible success is this at anything but Nasta? and if so how does this make you more notable than any other station which have won awards at Nasta. you also ascertain its quality but this simple isn't the case,unless you could show some greater influence, such as notable former members like the university Newspaper. In the article as it was it talks about the station now and its un notable shows, rather its should explain about its history its development the way it produces television and any influence this has had. Now do you have anything that GUST was the first or that it so notable within the student TV or the wider TV community. The article didn't cite any sources. I prefer to merge it since then it would still redirect to the nasta page, but if you are right about Nasta, i may well rewrite the article on Nasta to one on Student TV on the UK and if you could provide sources on GUST that i could use for the History section i would appreciate it. Sherzo 04:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points but I still think we should do this through AfD. Perhaps you could nominate it? I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to do it.JMalky 14:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, see my response on the NaSTA article discussion page. JMalky 15:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  given my misinform nature on nasta, that this article isn't a sub article, I've restored it until an outcome is decided. I feel the best next step would be request for comment. Sherzo 02:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, agreed. Cheers. JMalky 08:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Following the unilateral actions of Sherzo, I have recreated the article and nominated it for deletion in order that the rules can be followed,, and a consesus reached. I will add that I'm for this article being kept, and have stated so on the AfD discussion page. Lets find out what other people think of it's current state of notability, not just from the people listed here. TorstenGuise 22:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second AfD Debate

message: The article has references from The Independent and the NME. Why aren't these valid sources? If anyone can do better I'll eat my hat. JMalky 21:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And could whoever put that tag up explain why they did it? JMalky 21:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No response? It's coming down. JMalky 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Careful when adding 'citation needed' tags. Have a look at the existing references. JMalky (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations again