Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tube Data Archive Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tube_Data_Archive

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. Cirt (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tube Data Archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No notability. "Tube Data Archive" has lots of mirrors, which don't work as "independent from the subject" and a non-notable association which gave them an award. Neither the association or the award are considered notable, and the association isn't really a reliable source. Other coverage is sorely lacking, and the required standard under WP:GNG isn't met here. Ironholds (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And yet it's the most complete resource on the subject (trust me, I ran one of its mirrors once). But I must admit that once the technology was abandoned outside the U.S. (and even there is quite a specialty) all current knowledge is hosted on hobbyist sites and reviewed by hobbyists, so formally even Frank's is "not notable". Frank won't get an MTV award but who really cares? NVO (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Great idea, and I like it, but a dozen mirrors does nto meet notability, it just has a dozen mirrors. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:59, 2 October 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.