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. However, a few more references here would help. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Blasphemy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Past AfDs have been largely inconclusive. The article has sat since the last one in 2007, still unreferenced and still of no evident notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above - no evidence of notability. Claims have been made in the past but no verification of them. google searches show nothing of significance (ignore the hit counts on google - they usually are higher than the actual number of results that are returned. In this case, around 450 actual hits against a reports 700,000+). noq (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability, and may be advertisement instead. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Looking at the prior AfDs shows mentions on G4 TV, Yahoo.com, and other highly placed reliable sources in the field in addition to won awards. The distinction of being the oldest such site in existence also gives it notability. As a side note, notability is not temporary, if it was notable due to G4, Yahoo (via ZDNet), MSN, ect. two years ago then it is still notable HominidMachinae (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Claims have been made but never backed up with references. Until they can be found, they are just claims. noq (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are easy to fine just by searching the site through Google. G4TV has it at: Free Download of the Day: Digital Blasphemy Wallpaper written by Megan Morrone on Wednesday, January 30, 2002 and its mentioned on an episode of the show they had on called The Screen Savers, in a section where "Megan Morrone counts down the six essential school supplies available online." [1] Mentioned on a television show and elsewhere. Dream Focus 14:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The G4TV links given are not significant coverage but just link to the Digital Blasphemy website. I am not seeing any indication that the on air coverage was significant. noq (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source has stated it notable. How much air time they gave it I don't know, since I haven't watched the episode or found any transcript of it. Doesn't matter though. They felt it notable enough to mention on their television show, and put it on their top six list, calling it "essential". So its clearly notable. Dream Focus 17:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Scan through the results. There are valid results. Like this one [2]. You have to pay them to read the full article though. Dream Focus 14:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator should read WP:BEFORE carefully. As demonstrated above, it have coverage in multiple reliable sources and passes WP:WEB. This kind of nomination should be discouraged for the purpose of productive collaboration and constructive encyclopedia building. --Reference Desker (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the nominator's favourite bedtime reading. However the article as it has stood for four years and three prior AfDs is way below acceptability. If someone wants to fix it, then I'd be delighted. If there is material out there (as several commenters have claimed here) to support notability, then I'd ask why it's still out there and not in here yet. There isn't enough sourcing out there to convince me that it's either clearly notable, or significant enough to make it worth trying to clean it up myself. BEFORE is a requirement for nominators to look for usable sourcing (and what I saw didn't convince me), not to press on with editing each and every article in the hope that there will turn out to be enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per all. Mathew10 (talk)
• Keep as aboveNirame (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per above, although if so many sources are available, they should really be put into the article to keep this from happening again. - Bkid ^{My talk}/_Contribs 08:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• When I search, I'm not seeing all these sources that everyone keeps talking about. Is my internet broken?—S Marshall T/C 12:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does my link to G4TV not work for you? That proves it was mentioned favorably on a notable television show. Dream Focus 15:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Most news sources are hidden behind paywalls. But the summaries of some major newspapers show clearly they have reviewed this site.

Telegraph, The : Digital Blasphemy
(www.digitalblasphemy.com)

$2.95 - The Telegraph - NewsBank - Sep 26, 2002

At Digital Blasphemy visitors can choose from many selections such as the newest additions which include a sunset at the Tropic of Cancer or a hibiscus ...

Digitally remastered Images at the edge of imagination

Pay-Per-View - Home News Tribune - ProQuest Archiver - Oct 21, 2005

A narrowly drawn site is Digital Blasphemywwwdigital blasphemycom a peddler of 3D rendered wallpapers for your computer screen Artist Ryan Bliss is trying ...

The Sacramento Bee : Winter is time to clean, upgrade

$2.95 - Sacramento Bee - NewsBank - Feb 5, 2001

Put up new wallpaper on your screen One of my favorite spots for free images is Digital Blasphemywwwdigital blasphemycom ...

• Just some of the results that appear. Dream Focus 15:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per third party reliability research supplied by Dream Focus above. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: little (if any) evidence of depth of coverage, in the small number of sources that mention the topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well color me surprised, the sources available all point toward notability. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Call me crazy, but after three previous AFDs with the same result wouldnt it be quite obvious that this subject is clearly notable. And it is.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable perhaps, but not clearly so. Three times now it has been closed as keep, owing to a chorus of "but there's lots of coverage out there!". Yet we still have a poor article that still fails to demonstrate this within the article. The article as it stands is nowhere near adequate: even if it could be made so, no-one has done this over four years. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with it, then fix it yourself. I added in a bit about the G4TV coverage in the reception area already. Dream Focus 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" -- the G4TV coverage adds nothing to notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well others disagree with you on that. Dream Focus 16:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus: you (and/or others) can disagree, deny, disavow, forswear all you like -- that does not change the F_A_C_T that G4TV's coverage is mere, bare, naked, denuded, unadorned, unelaborated, unembelished, trivial mention. De Nile is not just de river in de Egypt, ya know. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:49, 5 May 2011 (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.