- 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 No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:49Z
Doesn't assert notability, no references, reads like ad copy.
- Delete Noclip 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete nonsense. Jefferson Anderson 18:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. There are over a quarter million Google hits for this quite-legit outfit, and some of the lead ones are off of the BBC's and MTV's websites. The article is certainly a mess, but last I checked, that's not a valid ground for AfD. RGTraynor 18:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as NN Bec-Thorn-Berry 21:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup per RGTraynor. Does need Alot of wikiwork but legit big time.--Xiahou 02:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources sources/we need sources/I don't see them/find dem sources. -Amarkov blahedits 06:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Sources sources/we like sources/I now see them/love dem sources. -Amarkov blahedits 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced, notability not established, and it reads like a promotional brochure. - Justin (Authalic) 07:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Delete Eusebeus 13:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nonsense --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup supported by Arts Council of England, at forefront of experimental/digital arts media, quarter million google hits, should be a no-brainer. 151.170.240.10 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be, except for the lack of actual reliable sources. -Amarkov blahedits 14:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - have edited it to include some sources and remove a lot of the PR nonsense, still needs some work done but is now hopefully worth keeping. Yorkshiresky 17:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I now see two independent reliable sources, one from 2001 and one from 2003. The article could use more cleanup, and fewer links to the company's websites. GRBerry 02:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It seems notability hasn't been met and the article reads like self-promo.Alan.ca 09:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way hasn't notability been met? There are sourced quotes, showing it's reach, both internationally and culturally and it's importance in the field of digital media, production and promotion. Yorkshiresky 15:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)15:35, 21 December 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.