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. Rlevse 12:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peekvid.com[edit]

Peekvid.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A slightly odd one -this was deleted as failing to assert notability at Peekvid, and that deletion was endorsed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 2, but this separate article was created and kept by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peekvid.com. I've checked Factiva (full text) and GNews, I find one non-trivial reference, a story in The Australian about the copyright enforcements against this site. I find a couple of other stories which list this with other leech sites as being affected by copyright concerns affecting YouTube. The site's brief popularity seems to stem form its providing leech links to copyright content, and that's not going to be allowed to continue, so we have no way of knowing if the site will continue to have any popularity, but that's not the issue: the issue here is that I can find only one non-trivial source, the rest seem to be passing mentions of the site as another in a series of sites under the hammer for copyright violation. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: How is this "odd"? It's very likely that the article was rewritten before being re-posted as peekvid.com. -- intgr 15:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete whether re-written or not, the current article fails WP:WEB - lacks detailed coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources. Awyong J. M. Salleh 16:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks notability. SakotGrimshine 20:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JzG. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The contrast between this and the previous nomination is awkward. Commenters in the previous nomination pointed out coverage in several published and quite prominent sources, among others CNet[1], NBC15[2], and RealTechNews[3] and the site indeed hit the top 300 rank on Alexa for a short period, and has stayed in the top 1000 since. I do not know what to make of it, other than simply "delete per nomination" bandwagon mentality (WP:PERNOM). -- intgr 08:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have just sought out this entry while researching an article about file sharing, and was stunned to find it being considered for deletion on the grounds cited above. If it's not good enough yet, then please fix it; if it lacks notability, then please also rid Wikipedia of everything else that is merely accessible and used every day by countless thousands around the world. Robma 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given the three sources on the article and more provided on the previous Afd, the subject is notable an verifiable enough. John Vandenberg 04:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I had the same experience as User:Robma, which is why i created the article. There are five current hits in Google news including one from the guardian, 1/2 million Google hits, and it is in the top 500 on Alexa. Need more be said? David Spart 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is one of the first well-known sites of it's kind, that alone makes it notable. Apart from that, the internet news community has spent considerable time about the subject.MrXian 0849, 1 March 2007 (UT)
• Comment I've added another two sources I found in Google News Archive. John Vandenberg 09:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a notable site that I am surprised to see here on afd but glad to see as an article in wikipedia. They deserve an article re our notability grounds but the name should be changed to Peekvid, SqueakBox 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sources demonstrate notability. Everyking 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable per WP:WEB. Xihr 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps you would explain how it is not notable? AfD is a discussion and not a vote; evidence of coverage by non-trivial and reliable sources has been produced. -- intgr 05:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable per WP:WEB by non-trivial secondary RS. –Pomte 00:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This has been up for about 9 days now, can someone close this? David Spart 01:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was the one who noted the NBC & RealTechNews (via Netscape's portal) in the last AfD discussion. I'm puzzled about the re-nom... Caknuck 10:17, 4 March 2007 (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.