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 no consensus. Not enough people seem to care whether the article is deleted or not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Change TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Previously PRODed. Appears to be a defunct campaign rather than a notable organisation. Only one independent reliable source has survived in the external links. Mccapra (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 03:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added archival links, so the reference section is a little more complete now. There is in-depth coverage about the campaign by reliable sources including The Globe and Mail, a leading newspaper in Canada. The coverage doesn't mention "Help! Change TV" by name, but is clearly about the controversy about Neilsen's sample. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ok well if the source you have added speaks about the general issue without mentioning this campaign by name I think if anything that shows that it was not notable rather than supporting its notability. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: let's look at the sources:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Help Change TV	WP:SPS	Not for establishing notability.	By virtue of WP:SPS.	✘ No
[1]	WP:SPS	Not for establishing notability.	Ditto, but also, it's just commenting on a NYT blog.	✘ No
[2]	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
[3]	Doesn't appear affiliated.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	Press release.	✘ No
[4]	Doesn't appear affiliated.	Blog.	Doesn't mention the organisation at all.	✘ No
[5]	Affiliated link dump.	~ N/A, it's just a link dump.	See above.	✘ No
[6]			Mentions the cause of the organisation, but doesn't appear to cover them in any depth. It isn't about them and at a skim-read, I can't even see them mentioned.	✘ No
[7]	No immediate red flags.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	It's just reporting on what the CEO is saying - basically a press release.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Overall I'm unconvinced WP:CORPDEPTH is satisfied here. SITH (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2019 (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.