Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SB.TV

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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SB.TV

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

Extremely spammy article which reads like an overindulgent press release. Subject might be notable but I'm not seeing anything worth keeping here. Discussions with primary (pretty much only) contributor are not going well, this editor sees nothing wrong with the article. RadioFan (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Look at the information presented. It is clearly a successful company, and no-one can say that anything is false on the article. I heavily despise this delete-and-discard ritual of Wikipedians these days, really exemplifying what seems to be a cybernetic sloth of which doesn't correspond with the speed at which I attain replies on my talk page. It doesn't take much time to rewrite this article if it's so 'promoted.' --TDW ✉ 00:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I think it's just as slothful when people say "Keep but add improving", but none of the 40 people who say it get around to, you know, ACTUALLY IMPROVING THE DAMN ARTICLE. Pot, meet kettle. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see your point but I despise Wikipedia being used purely as a promotional vehicle. This article should be deleted without prejudice towards starting over from a nuetral point of view.--RadioFan (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my point, somehow a discarding cyber culture has arisen on Wikipedia whereby moderators/administrators such as yourself don't care for anything to actually be added to the encyclopedia. SB.TV exists, the references give enough evidence of that. Now I may be an amateurish editor when I can't see an entire article as an advert, but I at least tried to amend what I saw that was promotional. It is not your only job to state what needs deleting and what doesn't. Can you not help an inferior Wikipedian out? P.S. The final (usually compulsory) resort of subpaging or putting the article into the incubator does not help, I see very few articles that actually 'hatch' somewhat into a fully-fledged one. --TDW ✉ 10:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources in the article that establish notability of the topic. Also, There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis is upon content within the article, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. The article shouldn't have been nominated for AfD in the first place. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2011 (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.