Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadcaster.com


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Broadcaster.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This states that the website domain is 'temporarily unavailable'. However, the website has been down since the approximate time of this edit if not before. Therefore, why do we have an article about a nonexistent website? This apparently was not a temporary thing.PoeticVerse (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - What is the rationale behind nominating this article for deletion? Your statement does not cite any policy or notability violation. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Broadcaster.com is well-known as a popup in some spyware . It certainly wouldn't be beyond them to spam Wikipedia as well, but I won't speculate further about that. Do we have a WP:EVIL? Besides their notoriety there doesn't seem to be much evidence of notability: Google News returns nothing and the references in the article have only trivial coverage. A book search comes up with some results, but at least for the first page of results it's only mentioned trivially in lists and examples. The rest seems to be spurious matches of "broadcaster com-" (without the dot - damn google), so they don't pass WP:WEB. I don't see how we could verify their notability or even most of the content of this article without any nontrivial sources or a working website, let alone rewrite it. Smocking (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. We shouldn't be basing any decision on deletion either on whether this site still exists, or whether it is suspected of any connection with spam and/or spyware, but on whether it is notable. There seems to be some non-press release coverage of this site amongst the Google News hits: . I don't think that these sources are enough for notability, but, if any more coverage can be found in independent reliable sources, including coverage of the allegations mentioned above, I would be willing to reconsider. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.