Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite Solutions

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. I do not think that WP:CORP applies to the article as I read it now, since it does not speak about a corporation (or similar). I find it surprising that the previous AfD led to survival of GoogleTV since the references in the article are all (but one) from Youtube, hardly a source of encyclopaedic standing. The external links are a fraction better, I suppose. In any case, the article in question here is substantially original research, most obviously the 'Proof of a hoax' section, and I'm surprised no-one mentioned that. The 'Alleged access...' section seems pointless, as it merely recounts in painful detail the content of a YouTube video. That just leaves the 'List of...' section, which nowhere claims notability. Perhaps a halfway cruft-free article that "gets over itself" on GoogleTV might pass muster, but here is not where to start, and this article claims to be about a 'thing' that fails every test we might apply to it. -Splash - tk 16:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Solutions

Video production company that fails WP:CORP. Much of the article content is about their hoaxes, which also apparently fail WP:N. Mikeblas 12:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GoogleTV, which was merged into this article, survived an AfD and all the reasons for keeping from then remain valid. --Stlemur 13:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The reason for keeping it was that consensus wasn't reached in the other AfD. The article has no verifiable sources for the topic of the article itself; everything is a YouTube video. Unless some bona-fide references are available, this article is just PR and spam for Mark (of MarksInfiniteSolutions.com), and needs to go. - Mikeblas 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The youtube videos are the content of the hoaxes. --Stlemur 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Right; which leaves us with no sources about the subject of the article itself, and adds to the flavor of promotion and SPAM. -- Mikeblas 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment***** It is perfectly notable. Go look at how many views the videos have received. And youtube is just where he hosts the videos, he has his own webstie. Jkshermanator 02:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently an Internet pranker and vandal. I'm not sure that WP:CORP applies, though if it did it would fall within the reliable rule that any company whose name includes solutions is not notable unless its business is dissolving things. More an Internet meme thing, and no notability shown. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Oh! I had read something that made me think they were billing themselves as a film production company. Then, I think the "not for things made up one day" rule will apply. -- Mikeblas 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several sources listed in the external links section, which seems to suggest that "GoogleTV" at least is a notable hoax. I'm not certain that the article is in the right form, but I think we should allow the article some time to develop.--Kubigula (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Most of what's listed in the links section of the article is self-published, and therefore fails attribution. -- Mikeblas 04:28, 8 April 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.