Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulit TV

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sulit TV[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article has been moved to draftspace twice in 24 hours. It has no references. Suggesting to Delete and Salt. Whiteguru (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sulit TV has its draftspace, but it was created at the article page. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Can't see any sources to qualify this article to meet GNG. Riteboke (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can easily be recreated if sources showing notability appear in future. Mccapra (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as per WP:TOOSOON. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Locked redirect to Cignal TV#Pay television It's probably going to come out...but looking at the product page, it's either an Android TV clone box or just another interactive TV platform that would be a miracle if anyone else supports outside Cignal and TV5. In a year this is likely done, and it probably won't establish enough GNG to have its own article breakout. Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cignal TV#Pay television per Nate's argument. A case of WP:TOOSOON. SBKSPP (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Currently WP:TOOSOON, recreate if meets WP:GNG. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, currently.----Rdp060707|talk 13:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article now has a reliable referrence. Myrabert01 (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources added there. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: From zero to six sources since being nominated, this is worth another look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:HEY. Meets WP:GNG with sources added to the article by Myrabert and Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning above and newly added sources. Koikefan (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Seemingly passes WP:GNG now. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SBKSPP, Koikefan and CruzRamiss2002. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.4meter4 (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article now has multiple reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2021 (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.