Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forefront.TV
Appearance
- 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)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:38, 9 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. At the same time, allow me to enquire, why do you think the NewMediaRockStars source is unreliable? 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)