Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Blasphemy (2nd 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for non notable company that fails WP:CORP. Mattisse 17:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's spam, someone please get a flamethrower. WilyD 18:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Benji64 19:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If it wasn't an advertisement in the first AfD, it certainly isn't now. This site is notable for being probably the oldest 3-D wallpaper site on the internet. I remember it from 1998, and it was already well established then.[1] If it were any other wallpaper site, I would vote delete, but this site was a true web pioneer. The first AfD notes that he has been mentioned on TechTV several times; if this can be verified, it will meet WP:CORP#1. (Full disclosure: I have several of DB's images in my wallpaper rotation.) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable website per MDD4696 in the original AfD. hateless 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete per nom as spam. As much as I have admired the artwork, this website is still a small business. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think digital wallpapers as a whole have somewhat declined in popularity but this is a notable site, or at least was at one point. --ColourBurst 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Non notable my ascot the article just needs some work. Slap a cleanup tag on it and go. Whispering 21:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable as one of the best places to go for wallpaper there is, especially among the Linux community. Has been for many years. --DarkAudit 01:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my comments in previous AfD. They're a reasonably well-established and well-known site that have been around forever. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though I am biased as a loyal subscriber. this is a notable website, and I think most people have seen the famous mushroom picture 'Fluorescence' which adorn the home page. could use a bit of a cleanup and maybe once I learn wiki I will try and do that =)Xenocidic 18:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I just removed a rather POV and unsourced line from it, but the site is definitely notable. Check the 162,000 "digital blasphemy" google hits if you're that sort of person, but a quick browse through the Google hits and the first AfD pretty much sums up notability. Doesn't look like spam or advertising to me. [disclaimer: several images from the site are in my wallpaper rotations on both my computers :)] --james(talk) 13:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: this website is very notable both for its longevity and the high level of its artwork, both free and for sale. Also, the article does not to me seem to be an advertisement. Jrbbopp 15:56, 31 July 2006 (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.