Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QubeTV (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QubeTV

QubeTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Has been 6 years since a

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (Disclaimer: I'm the primary author of the article.) The situation is essentially the same as with the prior nomination. There are multiple reliable sources focusing on the website. That the website is now defunct doesn't alter the notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another failed YouTube clone, and our standards have changed since 2009 so this doesn't pass N under current guidelines. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which aspect has changed since then that you see as as a relevant difference? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The two sources we have are the equivalent of
  WP:ITEXISTS without any further explanation (with the Daily Show mention clear opinion) and there was no follow up or additional sources added. Nate • (chatter) 22:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How so? The Washington Times article includes specific discussion about the goals, and dicusses the founders and their motivation. Similarly the Richmond article has a lot more than just existence. I'm struggling to see what aspect here is somehow different not about the general notability criterion. (And since ITEXISTS was an existing argument to avoid since well before 2009, that hasn't changed either.) JoshuaZ (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is not too much coverage to meet notability. It's defunct anyway, so no one is really going to be reading about it.Royal88888 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DEFUNCT is a specific policy. Something being defunct is not a valid deletion argument. Notability is not temporary. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep: "Has been 6 years since a GNG was raised" is not a thing. If the subject was deemed notable six years ago, then it's still notable; articles aren't re-reviewed every six years. There is no deletion rationale for this nomination, and it should be withdrawn. Re: Royal88888, "no one is really going to be reading about it" is also not a deletion rationale. See
  WP:DEFUNCT. Toughpigs (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Striking, misread the nomination as "6 years since the last AfD nomination".[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't see coverage of this site; there is a channel on Youtube using the name, that appears to be a network from India. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2024 (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.