Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hak5

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hak5

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

no real notability shown for this "home-grown" video podcast. notability is not inhereted from notable contributors. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. most current sources are by Hak5. others are not significant coverage. nothing satisfying WP:WEB. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wanted to find a reason to delete this because it looked useless to me, but after reviewing the references, there has been some actual coverage in reliable sources about the subject. i kan reed (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage has not been significant. The best is one short paragraph. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to worry about the signifigance of coverage, as that's really subjective, and you may be right. I just use RS as my main thermometer. i kan reed (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Duffforme is right to say there's no significant coverage for this article, I've also checked thoroughly, so on that basis it should be deleted. On the other hand it has existed for over 5 years and been maintained by someone - it is NPOV and harmless - therefore might well be allowed to exist on those bases alone. Its my understanding that WP:guidelines are just that, guidelines, not rules to be read to the letter. Mark^Dask 11:59, 5 July 2011 (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.