Talk:Student television in the United Kingdom/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 3 (GUST talkpage)

Hello. Just a suggestion, but I reckon the GUST wikipedia page should probably not include:

• Details of current editors
• Lists of awards
• Lots of technical babble

JMalky 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

current editors is unencyclopedic. notible gusties of old would be good. some technical stuff is interesting probably limit to original broadcast methods and brief idea of current technology.

Lists suck. the 7 years in a row winnig of nasta doesnt though interesting awards stuff should be kept no need for a full list though. imo --cloudo 19:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The history section includes a lot of techy stuff. Could be expanded a little. Who put in the thing about the GUST Sport theme tune BTW? Is that really vital information? JMalky 11:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

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)

since there's no real objection i merge it. Sherzo 23:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Aye on yersel Sherzo. Or wait a min "This article was nominated for deletion on 16 November, 2006. The result of the discussion was KEEP."

If anyone wants this page deleted/merged, be nice and discuss it here or elsewhere first. JMalky 08:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First its not really done to reformat other people's comments, so i have restored them, second i did has you not over a month before you reverted it, so accusing me of not discuss it is a flatout lie. third this isn't notable enough to have its own forked article from the Nasta one. fourth i will assume that like wongch2 you are a member of nasta and would remind you that self promotion is prohibited you should wait till someone else writes an article about you since its shows your actually notable. Sherzo 05:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

I appreciate your apology. i have just read the AfD, the first at the time the Nasta article was in such a poor state that it could be justifiable because notable facts may be lost, this however is no longer the case the article has increased immensely in terms of quality to the point that forking out individual station articles is no longer justified. second in the debate you say there are many source yet the article only has one incestious reference no external 3rd party reliable or even verifible sources, as such it has failed to live up to one of the arguments for the keep. i did a quick google check and pretty much every result in reference to this station was either one relating to the university of glasgow or a mirror of this. third i would also debate your claim that it is a TV station since the university itself lists it as a club[1] and i would remind that college club have to be of Cambridge Footlights calibur to be notable. further your entire argument of notability is based on the fact it was first, one do you have a single 3rd party source to back this up. Two why does this make it notable were they pioneers? as someone had to be first among the nasta stations why does it entitle you to your own article.

lastly wikipedia does have rules so as to make it a useful tool to everyone in the world. and the self promotion rule is a good measure of notability since if someone not involved feels your notable then that the first criteria to proving it is. So just to be clear you are not nor have you ever been a member of GUST? Sherzo 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Yeah, agreed. Cheers. JMalky 08:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-write

I've re-written a large portion of the article. It has a few more references now, and is of a far more appropriate length. There are still a handful of unsourced statements though, and I think flow/sentence structure could be improved upon in a few places. Any help would be much appreciated. JMalky 14:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

it certain alot better, though i'm not crazy about your sources as the independent one carries alot of information that is flatout wrong and strikes me as pep piece either a verbatim copy off nasta the old wiki pages or individual website fronts, i have tried looking for other source yet have come up completely empty, [2] doesn't mention it nor does the BBC or any other history of TV in the UK or Scotland. Sherzo 09:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know those sources aren't great but I'm afraid that's all I could find, and I had a really thorough search. At least the article is sourced to some extent now. I'm not sure that your link to The Museum of Broadcast Communications is particularly relevant though. Is it a definative source? I would say the lack of mention in UK/Scottish sources is more damaging for the article's notability! But at any rate, I think the article is as good as it's going to get. Wether it's good enough or not, we shall see. JMalky 10:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

the point was for it not to be notable enough to be listed in a page on the history of scottish broadcasting or recieve any mention from the bbc on its pioneer status makes its notable dubious at best Sherzo 06:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I disagree! Of course the station is not notable enough to be listed with national broadcasters. But it doesn't follow that it's not notable enough for wikipedia! There is a middle ground, surely. I don't think we're getting anywhere here though, we've both made our points. That notability tag has been up for a while now and we still have no third opinion. JMalky 09:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that, in terms of content and flow, the article is miles better than it was when the AfD was closed: unencyclopaedic content about the different programs etc has been removed. It would seem that, although the station would theoretically pass WP:N (the first in UK, plus winning the "Nasties"), I would echo Sherzo's concern is that there are insufficient quality sources to pin those assertions of notability. That would seem to imply that its notability is indeed very borderline. If, for example, we could source the "Nasties" awards, that would be a good start. If we do not even have that, it's a pretty poor sign, and I would then be inclined to merge to GU with a redirect. Do bear in mind that off-line sources are also acceptable, provided they satisfy WP:RS. At the time of writing, the NASTA site is down, so I can't check whether they have this information. Ohconfucius 10:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• I think the important issue here is to decide wether all student media is noteable. There are many articles on student radio stations and student rags on wikipedia. I can't understand why a student television station should be any different. The editor who first marked this for deletion, Ohconfucius is well known (especially to me) as a deletionist with a particular interest in UK education, and again is following my gripe of international editors not understanding the relevant situations and taking the guidelines as defacto. Just because you can't find a weblink to it does not mean the subject is not notorious. I admit that it adds some credibility to the subject, but internet resources can not be relied on as accurate sources for facts. Something that has become more apparent to me since I have become a New Page Patroller and a member of the Counter Vanalism unit.TorstenGuise 12:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• I think it might well be a problem of intuition and scale here. Anyone familiar with UK academia would consider that on the British scale Glasgow University is a very large well known institution, and as such many of it's major student bodies will be notable, almost inherently. However, on the international scale, Glasgow is a city of barely over a million people and as such even a local commercial broadcaster would seem non-notable, let alone a student TV station. The way I see it, there *are* sources, and hence GUST has been noted, and there *is* an assertion of notability and that also is sourced, so on technicality, even if the station does seem small, I think it passes. One of the major reasons it fails in some international editor's eyes is that in the US it is not uncommon to have student/volunteer run stations broadcast over local cable and hence cover whole cities. This makes most UK student TV/radio stations seem relatively insignificant, despite their notability on a national scale. Oh, and the fact that Sherzo has found websites that are *not* sources hardly demonstrates anything - GUST isn't mentioned in the Domesday book or Vogue Magazine either.Tomisaac 16:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

First Tomisaac i was merely clarify a point, as a tv station it fails notability mny schools in the US and canada have similar capabilities, if its notability rest on a cultural impact, since it predates some national broadcaster you'd expect some mention in a history of television in Scotland, so your argument is a strawman since niether of the publications cover television or its history in any great detail, (I know TV was invented in the UK in the 1930s not the 11th century so perhaps you should do a little more fact checking tomisaac, British inventors are good but not that good) I doubt anyone would dispute a university's notability but you do not inherit notability, i am not notable because i work for the government which is notable, Glasgow Uni itself list GUST as a club so is the university lying? it fails a google check, and since the internet is far more open forum than the national press if it was of the national "notoriety" as you claim i'd expect several hits, the claim to notability is also flimsy, on that the station itself will freely admit it has no evidence for its start date, and the article you state as establishing notability is a pep piece with many factual inaccuracies as you well know tomisaac (remember Bloomsbury TV?) since it has quite clearly wrong on at least some of its assertation even contradicting what station write about themselves, LUST is apparantly is focused on News, yet LUST claim they focus on filming at nightclubs, so is the article wrong or is the station lying? I would also remind you that that of the original AfD debate it was asserted that there were many newspaper articles, yet none have been sourced as notable UK papers are considered reliable sources so articles in the London Times or Manchester Guardian would be acceptable. another way to prove notable would to provide some notable alumni as Glasgow U paper does, this provides the relevant notability to satisfy the guidelines and if such could be provided i would be more than happy to support this article remaining. but how is GUST anymore notable than a group of scottish students who post videos on youtube?

TorstenGuise i think its a bit unfair what you said about Ohcon since its seems a pretty fair approach, and all reality must media clubs are where people essential get to play at being journalists, directors etc and a simple association with a college doesn't make them notable.Sherzo 19:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't want to enter into a debate as to wether deletionism or inclusionism is better.Ohconfucius and I have had debates over a number of UK Student related subjects. Mostly, revolving about this issue. Having said that, I do think that's a good thing, as it provokes debate. Something we have both engaged in over articles.
  

However, something I must take issue with is that notoriety can be less than the bench mark that you have placed. Not everything will be referenced to the London Times or the Manchester Guardian. You comment that noteable UK papers are concidered reliable sources. What about local papers? Here's an example. The Guardian Media Group publish the local Manchester Evening News. Are subjects that have reference in a newspaper of this size, but left out of the Guardian not notorious enough for wikipedia? or is the M.E.N. not a credible source? If so, why not?

One other thing. As it's missing from your user page, where exactly in the world are you based? Thanks. TorstenGuise 22:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I did feel perhaps you misrepresented me, or may have glossed over what I wrote. I had contemplated a speaking up, but I know where you're coming from. I do agree that the issue is not deletionism vs inclusionism, but how we are building up a base of knowledge by writing about things which matter to people. It's too easy to dismiss the fact that an editor knows nothing about an article he/she may feel like contributing to, even if it may be deleting chunks out of it within the spirit or the letter of WP, just because he/she lives several thousands of km away Ohconfucius 02:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I local papers are less "reliable" because the quality of journalism is often lower, the ability to use them as fradulent references, and i some case the small community they serve, however a paper that is the secondary outlet of a national publisher or that serves a relatively large city are reliable Sherzo 23:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think your opinion of local rags in the UK are somewhat misplaced. Infact i have read better articles in some local newspapers than you would see in the national press. Also, as you are from where you are, please remember that the UK mainland is a lot smaller than some of those areas within such a federal body, a county in the UK is a big deal, and cities have to have a royal charter to be one; not just named one to add credence to a place. As such, everything is magnified and has more notoriety than would be in such a larger country :) TorstenGuise 23:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

but thats why notability is important since it means multiple sources, making verifing easier, would you have no problem with an article solely sourced from the national enquirer or the daily express? Sherzo 02:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think there is a hard and fast rule. Much depends not only on its coverage/readership, but on its general credibility, and sometimes on context or type of news reported. I think there is a rebuttable presumption that all established "papers" can be and are "reliable", but there may be caveats. Let me illustrate with a few examples: Xinhua is an official source of news for China, like the BBC in some ways, and is generally reliable. However, as a mouthpiece of a government which does not tolerate dissent, and continues to operate state censorship, cannot be considered a reliable source when citing for "sensitive matters" such as political turmoil (viz Tiananmen Square protests of 1989), or the state of a leaders health (viz Huang Ju). Many reputable papers have entertainment pages and gossip columns, where the quality of the reporting and fact-checking is often of a much lower standard. Some local papers serve communities so small or stable that they often have nothing to report, so almost anything out of the ordinary (such as an old lady tripping up and falling at the entrance of a local mall, or the local fire-brigade being called to rescue a scared cat from a tree) may well merit an article. Ohconfucius 02:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sherzo, as far as reputable/notable sources go it's fair to say that The Independent and the NME are fantiastic references for the station, even though you might take issue with the journalism in those articles. Again, you're picking some rather unusual sources for us to look up. Why would Glasgow University Student Television be mentioned in the Manchester Guardian or the London Times? At any rate, apparently GUST was listed in the last Media Guardian directory[3], a reference that probably wouldn't be relevant for inclusion in the article but I hope it'll tip the scales in this particular argument. Sherzo, Ohconfucius, please trust me when I say that the Media Guardian is a reputable UK media trade paper. Unfortunately it's an offline source and I don't own a copy of the directory, but bear with me and I'll see if I can get you the referencing details. JMalky 08:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I think this ongoing debate is a good reminder that the concept of notability is unpopular (or at least disputed) on Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting that this invalidates your arguments but I think it should be kept in mind. Because ultimately this is a difference of opinion, not a matter of laying down the law. JMalky 09:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just citing them as examples, rather than listing every UK paper in existence but can you name every american or french paper JMalky? Sherzo 13:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jmalky left a note on my talk page asking for my opinion on the notability of this article. Here goes. Notability is merely shorthand for "The likelyhood that reliable sources exist to which information in this article can be referenced." That's it. It hasn't anything to do with appeal, or likelyhood of someone careing about it, or importance, or anything like that. Just do reliable sources exist, or are they likely to. Reliable sources should be: extensive (more than just directory information), independant (not published by the subject or affiliates of the subject of the article) and multiple. Under normal circumstances, student organizations, such as campus newspapers, intramural sports teams, local service organizations, or campus TV stations are NOT likely to have enough source material; however, ALL articles notability is ALWAYS to be tested on a case by case basis. What should be asked of this TV station is: Do they broadcast outside of the university in question? If it is an over-the-air TV station that is seen throughout the Glasgow area, then it is likely that its programming is reviewed in local media, and thus probably notable. If this is something that only runs on the dormatory cable TV system; then it is likely that the ONLY people who see it are university students, thus the ONLY information about the station is likely to come from self-published sources, and THUS it would be not notable. From looking at the article, I see two sources listed that seem independant, thus this article appears to MAYBE be notable.

The bigger question to ask is; does this information better belong in the article of the University itself. In general, student organizations should be included in the article about the relevent institution UNLESS the organization receives renough independant press to provide enough reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article from. So basically, when Jmalky asked me on my talk page for my opinion as to if this organization is notable to write an article on? Maybe. I can't tell from what is there right now, but it has some potential. What MAY be better as a whole is to combine ALL Glasgow University Media outlets (the TV, Radio, Newspaper, and Magazine) into ONE article, titled Glasgow University media organizations or something. While each may not have enough sources to stand on its own, put them together and it makes for a better article. Just my two cents... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I just want to say though that I don't think merging the different Glasgow University media bodies would be appropriate. They're very seperate organisations, with widely varying degrees of notability. Glasgow University Guardian (newspaper) is definately notable in it's own right, I believe that's been agreed upon in the past. The radio station also easily meets the criteria for notability (city-wide broadcast, plenty of coverage in third party sources etc etc). The student magazine is all but defunct, although I believe it's still listed on various websites. Looking at the above, the vote for GUST seems to be a big fat maybe. JMalky 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would Disagree this article isn't notable enough, but combined with the others it is so i think Jayron32 plan is the best compromise Sherzo 04:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Second AfD Debate

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)

Yes i took Unilateral action there had been no debate for some time you had simply stopped responding so i assumed you accepted the opposing argument, rather than hoping to avoid its deletion by delaying tactics. Sherzo 13:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

there is simply not a single argument in the AFD for it being kept, its not a vote after all, the british student television page more than adequately covers the culture, and GUST is simply not a TV station it has no broadcast capabilitySherzo 13:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was to keep the page, and if you had created the AfD debate, then you might have had some warranty to your actions. Again I'm forced to point out that you are the only person with opposition to this article. You didn't even enter into the AfD debate, something which undermines your statements. As far as your statement on my user page, I will say that wikipedia is not a dictatorship either. TorstenGuise 22:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

you mean a snap keep thats open for less than week Sherzo 23:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

an admin closed it, not me. TorstenGuise 23:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations

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)

And could whoever put that tag up explain why they did it? JMalky 21:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No response? It's coming down. JMalky 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations again

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

-- I think that having 18 separate citation needed tags is ridiculous. To say that they show editors where improvement is required is ridiculous when the whole article is clearly in need of improvement. The template page for says that it is for particular statements or sections which require evidence and if the whole article requires it then to add an appropriate template to the head of the page. I think the carpet bomb of fact tags is redundant on this article. No? --cloudo (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)