Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTB2

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. No sources, no notability. Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

RTB2

RTB2 (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)

Plain advertising The Banner talk 18:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising. (I've also never seen such high rate of wikilinking). Amortias (T)(C) 21:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I can imagine. I had cleaned out the article already a few times, it was protected due to disruptive editing but it only becomes worse, so the clear objective is advertising. The Banner talk 08:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Will clean up to remove advertising 202.160.16.131 (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Partial done (let's just close it already) 202.160.16.131 (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • No way. The Banner talk 09:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
      • At Wikipedia, discussions does not end like that. Just do it already. I've cleaned it UP, you see?! 202.160.16.131 (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC) [just let a bot end this!]
        • And if you don't, I'll remove this AfD. 202.160.16.131 (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
          • 100% keep This article may be useful for researches. WHAT ABOUT RTB1? 202.160.16.131 (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Let a bot handle the vandalism. I will handle the rest. 202.160.16.131 (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
              • I do not see vandalism, just disruptive editing by an probably involved editor. Both articles RTB1 and RTB2 are completely unsourced, so you better get some independent, prior published reliable sources conform Wikipedia:reliable Sources. And please behave a bit. The Banner talk 12:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Revert to this version - but with a smaller logo and some references - Wikipedia is not a directory - Arjayay (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Done and sorry about the post at the top 202.160.16.131 (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. This article, along with a few dozen other Asian media related articles, has been the object of ongoing disruption for many years. I have been watching these articles and taking care of the most egregious disruption but I've been trying to be careful to avoid interfering with those content issues that are not associated with the disruption. Discussion has taken place previously on this subject, if need be, ping me and I will find them. Tiderolls 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Check page history of RTB2. 202.160.16.131 (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Comment - So the article looked like an ad, and the nom and other delete !voter thought that it should be deleted for that reason. It turned out that there was a non-promotional version (to my eyes) in the history, and the article was reverted to that version. No one has given a delete rationale other than that the article is advertising, and no one argues that the current version is promotional. The nom has had 7 days since the revert was made to say whether the revert addresses their concerns or not. Close this as keep as the nominator's deletion rationale no longer applies. 137.43.188.181 (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Although it is now a short article of plain facts, there are no third-party sources that I can find that would bring notability. There are plenty of sites that give access to the streaming, but not *about* the service. And note that there are no references in the article. Proponents of the article may have access to sources that I did not turn up, and that could make a difference. As of now, however, that does not seem to be the case. LaMona (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2014 (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.