Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demoscene.tv


 * 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, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

demoscene.tv

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB, WP:ATT. RJASE1 Talk  03:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I admit the attribution part is a bit sloppy (largely due to my lack of time, e.g. see  and many more - ~50000 google hits should be enough to pick from), but let's hope we can expand on it in the next few days. // Gargaj 07:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete counting hits is no substitute for non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources, of which there is, to date, precisely none cited. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't attempt to substantiate its own reliability. Lacks sources. Autocracy 20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notable, one of the channels in negotiations with Joost.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 21:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If there are no published and reliable sources (not some random web page) the article needs to go. Googlehits doesn't matter. Pax:Vobiscum 23:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe google hits don't themselves matter, but they are an indicator, Why not go through some of those google hits and actually see if the subject is notable? I found a couple hits in my couple minutes of searching. McKay 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - We can't go around deleting every article that's not properly expanded yet, instead we should try to make them better. I suggest adding one of them "help expanding this article" tags to it. Demoscene.tv is a well respected source for streamed demoscene material, and there are plenty of sources to back this up, the lack of said sources listed here is just sloppiness for now but give it time and it'll get fixed. --Tobias Lind 10:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an article that has been up for more than 6 months, that's plenty of time to find sources. We can't wait forever for sources that may not exist. Just because you consider it well respected doesn't mean that we can ignore policy. "Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (from WP:ATT) Pax:Vobiscum 11:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment .. 6 months and not a single "help expanding this article" or "needs citation" tags? I for one didn't even know you wanted more sources to begin with. It's unreasonable to delete every article that needs work, you should tag articles accordingly first to indicate that it needs work before trying to delete said articles. --Tobias Lind 21:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there are some proper references from reliable sources to establish notability. There are none in the article yet and it's almost finished its AfD. NBeale 17:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are enough sources now. McKay 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the references recently added to the article, plus the additional points available on the internet. Burntsauce 23:28, 16 March 2007 (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.