Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QubeTV
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
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 keep. MBisanz talk 00:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- QubeTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
vanity page, non-notable, appears to just repost youtube articles, links are far from encyclopedic Aurush kazeminitalk 03:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE -- Agreed, lists of links are not encyclopedic. According to the article itself, it just provides a list of links to YouTube material. The article itself is poorly written and stubby. -- SmashTheState (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep The ABC News story and the Washington Times story are both about this subject. So there's substantial independent coverage. I suspect there are probably other stories as well. Not sure why this is being nommed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that doesnt establish notability, papers do articles on things that dont go on wikipedia all the time - it was nominated because it isnt notable jeezus! Aurush kazeminitalk 05:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It satisfies Wikipedia's definition of notability (non-trivial coverage in reliable sources). [1] And I don't think it's a vanity page, since it was created by longtime contributor User:JoshuaZ. Zagalejo^^^ 06:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The quality of the writing in the article is not a reason for deletion, and it passes WP:N. -FaerieInGrey (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage is the very definition of notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.