Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Screening Room

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. Nakon 19:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Screening Room

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

WP:CRYSTAL. We can write an article about it when it actually exists. MSJapan (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. clearly not yet notable. We can write an article about it when it actually exists, if it ever does . DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. We may need an article on this eventually, but for now, there's nothing to say it won't fizzle in the design chambers. Delete until it exists (or if it gets MAJOR coverage) Fieari (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sean Parker as suggested by WP:CRYSTAL, "...product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable." ~Kvng (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the deprodder, you're going to need a stronger argument than that. This is not a product announcement, because it's not a product; it's a piece of paper. That's it. Lots of notable people write things on pieces of paper and give them to other people; that doesn't make the piece of paper notable, or worthy of mention. MSJapan (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware there were any special hurdles for deprodders. Sure, it is not up and running but it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. What's the problem with merging this cited material to Sean Parker? ~Kvng (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable, as the product does not exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is defined as significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Things that don't exist can certainly be notable. ~Kvng (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found an interesting piece in The Verge, but I don't think this qualifies as "significant" coverage yet. For now it's mostly "news", i.e. not a subject for an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete altogether as there's still nothing actually confirmed, nothing else to suggest anything minimally otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 9 July 2016 (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.