Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AmateurLogic.tv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 09:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AmateurLogic.tv

AmateurLogic.tv (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable website, despite the claims of notability which look like they were put in there in order to forestall an AfD. Corvus cornix 03:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Original editor deleted all content and AfD from page. Delete as unnotable podcast. Nate 03:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I wish to query what appears to be a inconsistent policy re deletions by wikipedia.

Essentially this appears to be based on a unstated perception that IPTV shows are less notable than say cable or community tv shows.

Now if wikipedia doesn't want to regard media of this kind as notable so be it but it should have a specific policy stating why this is so. Shows like Hak5, Ctrl-Alt-Chicken are relevant to the audiences they serve as shown by the thousands of viewers who regularly watch Youtube or download episodes from websites.

In any event shows such as Amateurlogic are of equal if not greater relevance than cable tv and community tv shows which are included in the following wikipedia entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_community_access_television_programs

Arguably Amateurlogic should have been listed there as well. It also arguably should be listed an an example of Australian (partly) culture.

As stated elsewhere I am not that fussed that the article gets deleted but I feel there should be a consistent application of policy regarding deletions and what constitutes notability. Further the inherent bias against IPTV shows vs community tv and cable tv shows in notability considerations needs to be discussed.

Pberrett 05:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Whether there is other crap on Wikipedia has no bearing on whether or not this article has proven its notability. Please address this article in this discussion, only. Corvus cornix 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No references can't be found which would establish WP:V of this site in an encyclopaedic context. --Russavia 09:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and no reliable sources to be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless standards of WP:V and/or WP:RS are changed to include... what? I don't know. Without reliable sources, it becomes impossible for editors to evaluate notability. Pigman 17:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources listed to verify the content.Ifit is the first internationally syndicated IPTV production, there should be independent documentation of that fact somewhere.jonathon 20:02, 15 October 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.