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. Joyous! Noise! 02:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speda TV (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)

While language search is an issue, the sourcing issues still remain as per the prior AfD. It does good work and has been punished for it, but is it notable? Note, creator has faced some COI questions, but put this through AfC, and I have no issue with their conduct. Star Mississippi 14:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, and Iraq. Star Mississippi 14:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is why I nominated the article for deletion last time and not draftification. Almost always a news outlet (or news personality) is not notable because they are not the focus of the story. The same is true here. I'm curious why Raydann accepted this draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman, I saw improvement since Star Mississippi's decline of the draft, and furthermore I did not see any WP:NPOV issues so I accepted it. I have eased up my AfC standards after discussions at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 249#About our process for approving at AfC & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Backlog drive progress about AfC being too harsh while accepting drafts. This doesn't mean that I do not look at the quality of a draft. In my 200+ reviews, I do not think I have shown wrong judgement in any one of them. This is the first time my accepted draft has been brought to AfD, but I do not take this negatively. If there is consensus that this article should be deleted, I have no good reasons to believe otherwise. But I will surely improve my judgement nonetheless. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in addition to the AfD and declines here (disclosure, at least one was mine, and I closed the aforementioned AfD), there's also the history at Draft:Speda_Tv for those with admin goggles. Star Mississippi 14:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2023 (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.