Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV IV (3rd nomination)


 * 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. No argument showing that this meets WP:WEB (multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage). I will create a redirect to Something Awful where this can perhaps be mentioned, with the 2 apparent independent sources that exist (the ranking and the Slashdot entry, which do not an article make). W.marsh 20:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

TV IV

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No notability. No claims to notability except Slashdot and a large number of pagesW No sources. Has 25 times as many pages as the unspeakable wiki but less notability and sources.Loldramalulz 02:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I was thinking this article might need to be expanded or deleted earlier, so I tagged it for expansion. If others feel it has already had its chances to improve and hasn't, then I agree with delete. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 04:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First two nominations for this page here and here. It seems the page has not improved. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 04:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Loldramalulz's only contribution to wikipedia is his suggestion to delete this page. It seems like he's just carrying on some petty internet grudge. Don't indulge him. Do we have to go through this every three weeks? --Stabbey 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merits of the nominator aside, shouldn't we focus more on the article, along with the fact this article has been kept before, but not improved? I'd say this is the third strike; let an expert come along and recreate it with real content. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 14:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yet another non-notable bit of internet cruft which belongs in the trash can with all the other website articles we've deleted. 17:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC) (unsigned comment by Drennleberrn )
 * Merge to Something Awful Forums. It's just a wiki offshoot of one of the subforums. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no section Something_Awful_Forums to which Something Awful Forums redirects. The section was renamed Site content on May 12, 2007. If its an offshoot, it would need an appropriate section, or its own created at least.  -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 18:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it deserves that much merit. It's not even one among the more famous of the Something Awful spin-off sites. It seems to have lost popularity except with "North Carolina vandal" and various other dumb trolls. Drennleberrn 00:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is there a reason you seem to exhibit such hostility toward the wiki? In response to Night Gyr, while the wiki did originate from the Something Awful forums, it now exists as a separate entity with no connection to Something Awful, official or unofficial, aside from the similarity in name. --Wizardryo 20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: He seems to know an awful lot about the vandalism that the site suffered from. DCEdwards1966 05:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Expand and Keep . According to Wikipedia's list of largest wikis, The TV IV has over 14 million views, making it one of the most-viewed wikis not related to Wikipedia. I agree with wizzard2k that the article should definitely be expanded, and I have done my part in helping flesh out the article a little as a result, but it should not be deleted based on what seems solely like a bad faith AfD. There is no strong compelling reason to delete, and by looking at the previous nomination for deletion, previous reasons for deleting this article have been shaky at best. --Wizardryo 17:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- Your efforts are appreciated in expanding the article, but what the article really needs is evidence of the subject's notability, not just more information about the service it provides. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 19:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The TV IV has been on Slashdot and is linked to on more than 300 of TVGuide's biggest shows, including Grey's Anatomy, American Idol, CSI, and House, M.D., which make up the four highest-rated shows on television right now. I understand that the content of the article is a little lacking, but that in and of itself does not make an article worthy of deletion. If anything, it should be tagged for cleanup and expansion, which has happened, thanks to you. The issue of notability has been brought up before in the past two deletion nominations, and I have approached it again here with extra notability through TVGuide. --Wizardryo 20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced that TV Guide, a source which exists to list all television content, linking to a site in its Related Web Sites section counts as a notability reference. To count something as notable and as a source, it needs to talk about the subject itself, not just a common 3rd subject. Slashdot is little more than a community blog, and things are posted there all the time without rhyme or reason of notability (I happen to be a regular Slashdot reader). The last AfD was merely procedural, as it was not listed correctly, so no real direction for the discussion was given. The first AfD resulted in No Consensus as it was believed the article could improve; it has not. Text merely describing what the website has on it is not an improvement on the article, as Wikipedia is not an internet directory. Content about the site would be a step in the right direction. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 05:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge. Not notable. Mynglestine 18:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Definetly with Something Awful Forums just a subclass of them--68.127.36.57 02:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand per Wizardryo. DCEdwards1966 05:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the article has had plenty of warnings and opportunity to be expanded. If someone wants to take the time to write a good article about it, they can certainly post it in its place (new content doesnt violate WP:CSD. The content up there looks like it would need a major overhaul to become an encyclopedia article. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 05:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. Template Master 14:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand, it's already looking better than it did when this first started. A good kick in the ass seems to be what's needed.  Can the article be expanded further?  -- Lampbane 15:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete or merge. If the "unspeakable wiki" is the same as I think it is, then it has been mentioned on Slashdot and at least 100 other places, whereas this was on slashdot only. Pwned,loldongs.Riboflavinl0l 02:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC) — Riboflavinl0l (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, or Merge into Something Awful until independent notability can be better established. If this doesn't strictly meet the WP:WEB guidelines, this ought to be an exception to those guidelines. DHowell 04:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

THIS ISN'T SOURCED!! Either restore Encyclopedia Dramatica or delete TV IV, Wikinfo, Wikitrtuh, Yellowikis and the other less notable wikis that somehow are allowed here. Riboflavinl0l 14:35, 31 May 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.