Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tips from the Top Floor

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tips from the Top Floor[edit]

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

The article almost seems to be written as an advertisement, and it lacks references for citation. --Z L Media 17:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep or a new nomination rationale required. Article lacking references is not a valid rationale. The world lacking sources is. Or should I say, would be : Tricks of the Podcasting Masters, Robert Walch, Mur Lafferty, Que Publishing-Google Books. We Are TFTTF - Community - Google+, Apr 16, 2014 - Fans of Tips from the Top Floor, the <emphasis added longest running photography show on the net>-Google vanilla. Etc etc. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are two arguments that could be made for notability here, WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT #2. I don't see that the article or Anarchangel has established sources that meet the first of those criteria. WEBCRIT 2 only applies to "well-known awards", on one hand, I think it's a stretch to suggest these are well-known awards in the meaning of that criteria, but that is mitigaged by two wins (2005 and 2006 education award.) I don't know of precent relevant WEBCRIT and the Podcast awards, but am willing to reconsider my view in view of such precedent if it's brought to my attention. The two relevant discussions on the relevant talk page Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web) do not appear to be sufficient to argue a consensus either way. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, recognized as noteworthy with multiple awards. — Cirt (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2014 (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.