Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tubefilter

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 September 28.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 15:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tubefilter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources except the streamy's.org (which is a press release) are one off mentions. No significant coverage. So fails WP:N+WP:WEB+WP:COMPANY. Otterathome (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Don't you ever learn? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tubefilter is the leading source for web series news. I'm not sure how this doesn't qualify for WP:NOTABILITY. But, in any case, you didn't even put a notability tag on the page or make a good faith effort to give editors a chance to improve the article. Billbowery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very bold statement saying that a website is a leading source of something, so an independent source saying so would be needed to back that claim up. None of the independent sources currently in the article seem to. I'm sure if it was the leading website in something there would be significant coverage on the website. And I didn't tag the page as looking at the quality of the article and number of sources, it seems likely that if there was any significant coverage, it would have already been added to the article.--Otterathome (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Otterathome's nominations in the webseries field are proven to be in bad faith. See the two nominations done for lg15:the last and two nominations done for Jackson Davis (kept), as well as Mesh Flinders (kept), Vincent Caso (kept), etc. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LG15:_The_Last_(2nd_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jackson_Davis_(3rd_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mesh_Flinders, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Otterathome.2C_User:80.171.27.157.2F80.171.27.157.2C_and_User:Mathieas and on and on, topic ban idea has been raised for him/her by other editors. On the merits of the AfD (of which there are none), tubefilter is recognized as a leading source of new in the webseries field.--Milowent (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion.--Otterathome (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, when did EQAL and LG15 pages disappear? Billbowery (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billbowery - I don't think EQAL has a page yet (though I think some editors were working on one in a sandbox), and I'm not sure LG15 would make sense, as that is usually used as shorthand for lonelygirl15. --Milowent (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LG15 was a redirect to LG15 Franchise, which was deleted first as a copyvio/A7. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: So you admit that you have not made a good-faith effort to follow WP:FAILN here? In that case, I think you should withdraw your nomination and this article should be speedy kept. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good faith effort has already appeared to have been made by the authors of the article as shown by the large amount of one-off mentions in attempt to show it is notable, also see WP:BURDEN.--Otterathome (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN is about adding information to a page that is likely to be challenged. Not to deleting pages. Regardless, as the one adding the AFD tag to a page, you have to show that it does not and cannot meet WP:N which you clearly have not done so if you have not followed WP:FAILN. Therefore, this nomination is invalid and the article should be speedy kept. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh what? Did you read "All sources except the streamy's.org (which is a press release) are one off mentions. No significant coverage. So fails WP:N+WP:WEB+WP:COMPANY." at the top? And the burden still relies on authors of entire articles to show they are notable. Why do you keep repeating 'speedy keep' instead of trying to show how it passes our guidelines? It's getting old.--Otterathome (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot prove it does not meet WP:N if you have not followed WP:FAILN. Therefore this article FAILS WP:DEL and is an invalid nomination. Therefore, I have every right to argue for speedy keep. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a legitimate speedy keep reason. But if you want to be satisfied: no significant coverage within in the last month, and still none before then. Instead of putting the burden on me, please address the notability issues yourself.--Otterathome (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAILN does NOT change WP:BURDEN, it does NOT state that you have to go find sources for them, Otter. It states that Deletion is a last resort and that beforehand, a good faith effort should be made to determine if the problem is lack of sources to cite(and therefore notability), or lack of citations of available sources(and therefore it's just a poorly written article). It contains a list of things that it suggests doing as part of that effort: looking for sources yourself is one possibility. The others are things like putting up notability tags, leaving messages on talk pages, contacting editors interested in the subject to tell them that there is a problem... In short, making the people that WP:BURDEN falls upon aware that there's an issue and giving them a chance to correct it. If this effort fails to improve the sourcing after a reasonable period of time, THEN you start considering merging it into another article or deleting it. In all cases this requires working with other editors to establish a consensus among them, and not just trying to impose your personal opinion upon them. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article not having any substantial coverage thus failing WP:N+WP:WEB+WP:COMPANY isn't a personal opinion, it's fact.--Otterathome (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a cursory look through Wikipedia and found several news or information sites (version tracker for instance), which I think are far less notable and influential, not to mention less sourced, that have entries. I think this is a valid method of gauging inclusion. Tubefilter is one of the 3 (I would argue 4) best sources for information about web video, not to mention one of the most influential. Mathieas (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument. If it's one of 'the best' and 'most influential', you'd need a reliable source to back it up. Otherwise it's just your personal opinion (WP:ILIKEIT).--Otterathome (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this situation WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is potentially quite relevant, as "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."--Milowent (talk) 19:02, 18 September 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.