Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outloud.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 Delete -- JForget  23:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Outloud.tv
this really pisses me off -- Outloud.Tv has been online since 2003 and was definately before youtube and current.tv the one and only website what is now called a "video sharing site". A total shame you guys deleted it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.154.90 (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is an advertisement, site is not notable at all, no source has ever written about this site. LightSpeed (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this is an advert, though if you're sure you might as well hit it for WP:CSD. That said, I don't see much real notability. The self-label "grandfather of Youtube" doesn't seem sufficient. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Advert with no real notability. Alberon (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong (Speedy) Delete: WP:CSD (possible WP:CSD)...... Densock  .. Talk This means Dendodge is on a public computer 10:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just tagged it for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The lack of reliable sources suggests that this topic may not deserve an article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of WP:N and WP:SPAM. When an article has a dotcom title, its definitely targetting viewers to this web site. Artene50 (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2008 (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.