Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV IV (second 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

TV IV
Procedural nomination, user did not use afdx. neutral --Wafulz 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominators original reasoning:
 * Seems no longer to exist! Link doesn't work Echalone 23:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Original AFD here Yomangani talk 00:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The link works for me and the site exists. --waffle iron talk 00:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if it's not already clear by my nomination ;) Link still doesn't work for me. Echalone 00:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Nominator's opinion struck as duplicate
 * "Link doesn't work for me" is not a particularly helpful reason for deletion. We also need to cover websites that do not exist anymore but were popular at some point of time. Heck, we have a whole category for these... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page loads for me, but it doesn't seem notable, and I can't find any reliable sources that have covered it. As such, it fails WP:V. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: No valid reason to delete. DCEdwards1966 15:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The site loads just fine and has never had significant downtime. It is the fourth largest non-Wikipedia wiki, and it was featured on Slashdot. --CygnusTM 18:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Reading the comments, it seems to have been nominated in the first place as an error/oversight, and in any event, there's simply no compelling reason yet described to delete it. --JCaesar 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have yet to be swayed by any of the above arguments for deleting the article. Not to mention that the original nominator's main point that the link doesn't work for him when it clearly is a thriving website is invalid. --Lance Conzett 00:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. The comment that it "is one of the largest wikis on the web" needs to be sourced or removed, however.  RFerreira 04:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a link to the source right in the middle of the sentence. (Click "largest wikis.") What more do you need? --CygnusTM 12:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. We should not be using other Wikipedia articles as sources.  Cite the actual source, not the Wikipedia article.  RFerreira 23:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * –– Lid(Talk) 05:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, not only is it the fourth largest non-Wikipedia wiki, it is third behind only the German wikipedia and English wikipedia for most views which are pretty much used as the basis for all other wikipedias. –– Lid(Talk) 05:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Cruft.--Holdenhurst 12:32, 29 September 2006 (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.