Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geeknights (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 no consensus, with slightly more prejudice against renomination. Skomorokh 13:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geeknights

This is the 2nd nomination of Geeknights after the prior one ~~2 weeks~~ 5 days ago reached no consensus due to the fact responses were limited. The reason I am bringing this back to AFD is the fact that the sources used in this article are not reliable, mainly blogs, forums tweets etc. and a search I conducted showed no reliable sources whatsoever. The show won a minor award that was also listed at AFD (not by me), but notability is not inherited. I encourage my fellow wikipedians to see my full report on this article at the prior afd. My analysis discusses many of the sources used in detail, so I encourage everyone to read that before forming an opinion. Thanks Marcusmax(speak) 02:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close The last AFD just closed five days ago with no consensus. Editors should be allowed time to address the problems with the article. This very much seems to be a WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED nomination. --Farix (Talk) 12:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No: see the closing admin's comment — "No consensus despite being listed for two weeks, so no prejudice towards a speedy renomination". This is not a nomination of "this was kept recently but that's a bad idea so let's discuss again". Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind I did not nominate this the first time, the first nominator had different reasons for nominating. My reasons are the strict policy of WP:N, WP:RS and WP:SPS. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I can't see anything that looks like a reliable source on this article, and minus reliable sources a topic isn't notable. Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- The leftorium 21:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Won Parsec award, "special guests" @ PAX. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was originally nominated by a new editor whose only contributions have been to sequentially propose Ginny McQueen, Parsec Awards, and Geeknights for deletion. That Parsec Awards was nominated for deletion (and that discussion ended as "keep") should have no bearing on any decision about this article. - Dravecky (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @278 · 05:39, 12 August 2009 (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.