Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forefront.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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Forefront.TV

Forefront.TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable "premium video content" website. Looks like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic article. Does not pass GNG. Delta13C (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment (Giving credence to Jytdog's comments, and to the additional comments provided by Delta, while I'm sustaining the statement made, I'm striking the Keep !vote. Lourdes 02:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)) Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. Significant reviews focused on forefront.tv like this in Variety and this in NewMediaRockstars cannot be ignored. If you don't mind, please do take my suggestion and check our notability guidelines and do a cursory check for sources before you nominate. Talk me up for any help you may need. Lourdes 04:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: If those are the only sources available, then I do not think the subject passes GNG. I'm also concerned that New Media Rock Stars is not a reliable source. Delta13C (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Delta, GNG can be attained even with one source; the GNG guideline itself specifies that there is no actual number of sources specified, while multiple sources are preferred. Two sources do make multiple sources, although there are other sources too, like this one by Rap Basement (Rap Basement's been voted VH1's Best Hip-Hop Lifestyle Site)[1]). At the same time, allow me to enquire, why do you think the NewMediaRockStars source is unreliable? It's a site that is approached by the likes of The New York Times for inputs on web based news.[2] For information, there's one more source about Forefront.tv from the editor. Also, what are your views on WEBCRIT? Thanks. Lourdes 09:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• GNG specifically mentions "sources," which implies that no single source can establish notability alone. Perhaps my hunch about New Media Rock Stars is nothing more than that, but it seems as though it is a moderately reliable source at best, and at worst a PR-vulnerable outlet. I think other opinions are needed here to sort out whether Forefront.tv meets GNG. My opinion is that is it too soon. Delta13C (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure. It's interesting that the GNG guidelines notes the following: "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." That's why I said that even a single source, for example the Variety source, is enough. In this particular case, we have four sources from three reliable outlets that cover the media company significantly. Thanks. Lourdes 14:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• I just do not see how a single 295-word article in Variety can establish notability alone. The other sources helps, but I don't see the amount of coverage I'd consider significant. Delta13C (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm thankful that (1) You've considered my point about GNG being attainable on one source too, as per guidelines (2) You've also now perchance considered all the sources. As much as I see, the objection you have is that you feel the content within the multiple sources provided is not enough. I do disagree with the viewpoint (as I believe the coverage easily satisfies WEBCRIT); I'll await comments from other editors on their interpretation. Thanks. Lourdes 18:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• delete fails WP:Golden rule and GNG which says topics need substantial discussion in multiple reliable sources. This article is sourced to a Vanity Fair blog posting and some trade rags. WP:TOOSOON and obviously promotional. (the last sentence is laughable: "Forefront is notable for their use of livestream, hangouts, meetups, tweet chats and other real time events to showcase their partners" Oh! They use social media!! How strange and exciting !!!!! blech.) Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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.