Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVARK


 * 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. One two three... 04:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

TVARK

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

Non-notable article on television presentation website. Serves as more of an advertisement for the site than a encyclopedia article. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, failure to pass WP:N standards, barely scrapes WP:CSD. ➲ redvers see my arsenal 13:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Support. As much as it pains me, I concur with the above points. It's a shame though. Malpass93 (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, I'm of two minds with this one. On one hand, it has been referenced by several notable people, and won a number of web awards about four years ago - I remember it used to be quite a significant source for TV Pres stuff, i.e. Charlie Brooker and other people used it as a source. However, I think since YouTube came along, it's been somewhat superseeded, not helped by their one year hiatus and their persistence with an annoying and antiquated file format. I also note in its history that the page has been kept at a particular version, which sortof implies it is maintained by the site's owners. It needs some coverage from third party sources, really. Bob talk 17:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — A itias  //  discussion  19:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep The Guardian ref establishes verifiability, and though brief, shows the importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Weak keep. Further to my comments above, I think it probably is justified in staying due to the now-present third party references. However, it probably needs cleaning up, and perhaps some info adding about their year-long hiatus. Bob talk 13:09, 21 May 2009 (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.