Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GBStv (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 delete per lack of reliable sources. W.marsh 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GBStv

GBStv (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS has no sources beyond primary source. The page is self sourced and has no reliable sources, no secondary sources and has had a warning regarding source on it for 4 months, has recieved heavy editting yet no sources. Quirex 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, there were plenty of sources before, but someone removed them and no one noticed. I have added them back. --Liface 21:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The first link is GBStv (primary source), the second is GBStv, the third is a broken link, the forth (Kevin's blog) is a blog, the fifth is a user edittable blog that anyone can post on, the sixth, brick films wiki, is a wiki and is user edittable, has only one edit, the seventh link is a blog. None of these are reliable or verifiable according to WP:V. --Quirex 21:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete As per Quirex above, and because this appears to be of interest to a limited community (Something Awful). ContivityGoddess 00:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. & ContivityGoddess --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails notability. Being mentioned on Attack of the Show (no indication of how substantial this mention was) does not establish widespread notability. The one and only independent reliable source seems to be a TV presenter wearing a t-shirt with the site's logo on G4 (TV channel), and we can't really build an encyclopaedia article out of that. Demiurge 14:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment under WP:RS, the GBStv website counts as a reliable source on the subject of GBStv only, so the article passes the verifiability test. However, it still fails WP:WEB due to the lack of non-trivial external references. Demiurge 16:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Non-existence of reliable sources is currently a criterion for deletion. Failure to cite existing sources is not. dryguy 16:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well I don't see them and no one has added them for the 4 months. That said this article fails WP:WEB: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. No, all published sources so far have been trivial. The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation. No GBStv has not won any such award. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. No one is redistributing GBStv branded content (that I know of). This is compounded with everything except the self-link failing WP:V. --Quirex 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Merge with Something awful - fails WP:WEB, unsourced assertion of pioneering notwithstanding. Only one actual article points to it, and the link there looks almost gratuitous. Time to return it to its parent until the sources arrive that can establish WP:WEB. B.Wind 01:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • GBStv is independant of Something Awful and merging these two seperate entities would not make sense. --Zsinj^Talk 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of notability (especially under WP:WEB) and verifiability in reliable media. --Jacj 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep It isnt much, but its enough. we perhaps need specific guidelines for this, because there will be more.DGG 01:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep GBStv has been under some major hatred for some asinine reason involving its creator. The only people even putting these notices on the page are people expressing such hatred. CurtDogg

  Comment: or, perhaps, it doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:WEB. Insufficient reliable sources (read: none) to merit merging with SA article. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: While GBStv was created by a forum member of Something Awful and does carry some of its themes, GBStv is not an official part of Something Awful. Therefore, merging it with Something Awful would be inaccurate.--Sswanso ^(talk) 12:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Hey, this is Chris Putnam, the creator of GBStv, and I just want to say I don't really mind if the article is deleted from Wikipedia although we have a decent number of active users and I do feel it's somewhat "notable" for that reason. It is true that there are no real reliable sources and, as such, I am okay with it being deleted. However, I'd really like to know where another useful encylopedia resource is online so people can learn about GBStv's history independent of its own web site. I fail to understand exactly why Wikipedia cannot afford to have more legitimate information archived on its site, especially relating to demonstrably large internet communities. As a side note it doesn't surprise me that the people pushing for this are possibly on the offensive for some drama reason that I have no grasp or part of (the user who is arguing for this the most, Quirex, is not surprisingly a proud SA goon). In fact I have been very busy with other projects for quite some time and have relied on our excellent community to run the site on their own. GBStv was never related to the Something Awful forums, it just required SA membership for the first 5 months of operation. I built it to provide a place for a community of friends to hang out and watch TV (and to showcase their content to one another), and it's still doing that over a year later with nearly 10,000 users. But alas, we have no legitimate notability according to the rules of Wikipedia, so again let me repeat I don't mind us going the way of the axe. I'm just a bit upset at what Wikipedia considers "notable" and "unnotable", and for a significant community like this to be lumped in with vanity articles for 12-year-olds is not just offensive, but it's unfair.

  Comment Wikipedia has these things called policies which are the rules of Wikipedia. These rules include expected behaviour of users and necessary requirements for article inclusion. If you read WP:WEB and WP:RS you'll see this AFD is solely based on policy. There is no drama here, it is the enforcement of wikipedia's own inclusion policies. --Quirex 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  "Wikipedia has these things called policies which are the rules of Wikipedia." Putnam is not dumb and he is simply stating that the notability guidelines could do with some tweaking. Zsinj^Talk 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  I'm simply specifying why I disagree with his remark about drama since I felt he was accusing me of nominating this in bad faith. I did not call him dumb, I think you misinterpretted my tone. --Quirex 23:05, 7 December 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.