Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoogleTV Beta


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

GoogleTV Beta

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Hopelessly unencyclopedic. – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 09:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC) The other issue is that the tone of the article is completely unencyclopedic. This also does not mean that another article cannot be written. This article fails on both notability and tone, and should be deleted. The draft should be tagged as needing to be blown up and started over, with nothing surviving the stubbing down except the title. An article would be a good idea, but not this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG, source search revealed no results.  NonsensicalSystem (error?)(.log) 09:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per above: I agree with you there, it is also written in a way that isn't suitable for Wikipedia Jamo62 (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Soft Delete Google TV Beta - There are at least two issues with this article, notability and encyclopedic tone. It should be noted that the author has created this page both in article space and in draft space.  This may be due either to ignorance or in order to game the system so that the article cannot be moved into draft space.  However, that did not prevent the article from being nominated for deletion.  As to notability, a review of the sources shows that only the Lifehacker article may be possibly be considered secondary.  If it is considered secondary, there is one independent reliable secondary source, and it does not pass general notability.  This does not mean that other sources do or do not exist.
 * Delete: Not encyclopedic at all. And while we are at it, the editor seems to have created the Infinitesolutions article as well, which I think should also be deleted. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2022 (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.