Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Digital

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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real Digital

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

this platform has missed many launch dates dating to around 2008. no concrete evidence it will ever launch. most info is provided by sauces connected to article content. fails wp:crystal in a big way should either by userfy to creators userspace or erased. they did test a signal for a while however this vanished in march and has not returned. I still say it fails wp:crystal Ruth-2013 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sauces, tasty... - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 11:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. Company holds a valid Ofcom broadcasting licence and is still trading normally on Companies House(additionally the Companies House data shows that the company became 'REAL Digital' in July 2009 so it would have been impossible for it to miss a launch date in 2008 as claimed). The article is backed up by links to a variety of reputable third party sources including Digital Spy, What Satellite Magazine and Companies House data.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ComeOnEngland (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. oh really then why has there former now disqualified director been posting on the digital spy forum under the name rapture tv a former company he was involved in claiming launch dates since 2008 until they blocked him. Just cause they changed the name officially in 2009 dont mean they have not missed dates. Sky comes to mind the official company name is bskyb however they trade as sky. Maybe do some research before comment in future. Also the licence list means nothing its littered with channels that have never launched(Ruth-2013 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. According to their website, the service has launched and boxes are available for sale.[1][2] However there hasn't been any independent coverage for over six months, which includes their launch and suspension of service. The few reliable articles included cover their conditional ability to offer Sky Sports, a presentation made at a trade expo and a report from Wotsat which didn't come true. Based on that, I don't think Real Digital currently passes the notability guidelines, although it could do in the future so userfication would be a good option. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has sufficient refs. Notability isn't temporary and isn't contingent on the service being a success. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Point is this article should never have been made because its not notable yet,never has been notable and wont be unless the service has a full launch. Your not involved with the subject are you? (Ruth-2013 (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep System most certainly exists, boxes have been sold and there has been a LOT of media coverage in reputable industry publications. Very many articles on here exist on things which haven't been launched (movies, books, albums) so that's not really a valid point. The article is extensively sourced, more so than most on here. --Kiand (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Please provide 100% hard proof of a normal customer who has a box. You can't can you! I suspect we wont get a valid discussion on this subject because it looks to me as though employees of real digital are posting which I suspect the last two keep posters are.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Going from your attempted (reverted) edits to the article and, now, repeated attempts to claim everyone supporting a keep is an employee (of a company you claim has gone out of existance and hence has no employees??), its become obvious that this is a completely bad faith nomination. Suggesting a speedy keep decision. --Kiand (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No its not It is my belief its gone or on its way out due to the fact its satellite signal vanished months ago and was meant to be back 7 days later which has been and long gone with no return. Maybe you should research before posting if you did not know but I suspect you did as I believe you a real digital employee. Imagine if sky shut down there epg there would be a lot of very annoyed customers this alone should make people realize there is no prospect here and wp:Crystal applies. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL does not deal with anything in this case. The article is sourced and verifiable. --Kiand (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No its not! No verification of a date epg services will resume in the article anywhere and I challenge you to find it! The only one you will find is a historical date and its still not back. wp:cyrstal therefore applies. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. To me, 18 sources and 2 template links look notable. It is a short-ish Article though, so perhaps we should expand it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many of the reference come from Real Digital's website and Facebook page, without them the article would likely be considered original research. There doesn't appear to be significant coverage from reliable independent sources. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yeah, most of the available sources on this are pretty press-releasey, but if they were actually broadcasting for half a year as the dates in the article indicate now that seems sufficient to me; notability is not temporary. It actually seems notable to me as such a tremendous PR bubble and flop and the article should convey what a cluster▒▒▒▒ it was. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:14, 15 May 2012 (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.