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 delete. Concerns of nominator not addressed, and two of the keep arguments are juvenile personal attacks. --Coredesat 03:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nectarine (radio)[edit]

Nectarine (radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested speedy. Does not claim or demonstrate notability per WP:WEB; no sources. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, and possibly WP:ADS. After going through Google News, the website doesn't seem to have been "subject of multiple and non-trivial published works"--TBCΦtalk? 03:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Le Spam. Realkyhick 06:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPAM. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Dubtfull It's not that notable, but not unknown either. // Liftarn
• Grudging weak delete. Not unknown among tracker music fans (Nectarine is among the most famous of demoscene net radios), but probably not famous enough according to our notability standards. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Huh?Thanks for keeping Nectarine below your notability standards in the future, asses :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.221.45.43 (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Eh... not a particularly constructive comment here. Please calm down and try this "debating" thing ocassionally. =) Anyway, the sad fact is, Wikipedia is being swamped with stuff about websites, and we have to set the bar somewhere. Regrettably, we get so many articles about apparently irrelevant sites that we have had to implement some dangerously huge obstacles and see what sticks - regrettably, it may mean that "sort of famous in their own circles" sites get axed, which is a shame but setting the bar is very difficult. Anyway, it is also my opinion that websites make lousy article material in general, unless there's something absolutely remarkable about them; Nectarine is, um... basically just a net radio station. I don't really see how this article could be expanded a lot; it's certainly worth putting it as an external link in some article or like. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. So Pouet.net is not "spam", and Nectarine is? The wikipaedophiles need to google a bit more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.96.119.5 (talk • contribs).
  • Ever gone fishing? Feel free to nominate that article for deletion too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A very important part of the demoscene past & present, and, for that matter, an important part of internet history. Who cares about google news, use your own brain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nterr (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Yes, and as such, discussing it in Wikipedia in some form is justified. Whether or not it warrants an article of its own is another matter altogether. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this article please nectarine is the most notable music site to the demoscene we should cover it yuckfoo 03:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep known and important site in its niche, the Demoscene. The Demoscene is significantly stronger in Europe than in the US, which might make it seem less relevant, but Wikipedia is not just about what is noteworthy in one country. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If it's known and important, surely you must know of some reliable sources that can be cited. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Alexa reports site traffic at over 1 million hits per week. I know most people don't like using Alexa as proof of notability, but that's a start. Also, the anonymous attacks in this discussion are only going to hurt efforts to keep the article, not help. --Vossanova ^o< 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are looking at the "Alexa rank", where a large number such as 1,000,000 indicates non-notability. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:12Z
  • Blush - never mind then. --Vossanova ^o< 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Demoscene. It is simply not notable enough for its own article. However, as a popular webcaster within the demoscene, it merits a mention in that main article. Vassyana 08:11, 8 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.