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

Sifu keith tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable Youtube "channel". This is not a real Tv channel. Article created by User:Sifu-keith, who also removed the prod and prod2 which were added to the page. Corvus cornix 22:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I placed the prod2 tag on this article. It was deleted earlier for the same reasons mentioned above. A^RendedWinter 22:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no assertion of notability. Carlosguitar 23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability, suffers from conflict of interest, contains internal contradictions and misrepresentations (e.g. number of employees). Sifu-keith, if you are reading this, it's great that you are making videos and I wish you well. You don't have enough of a following to justify a Wikipedia article yet, but when you do, someone will write it. Good luck! Brianlucas 23:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. The article can't decide whether it's about a company or a series of videos, but there aren't reliable sources to back up either. —C.Fred (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is this definitively a YouTube channel? If so, that's web content, and it's a candidate for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No assertion of notability. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Brianlucas. Probably speediable. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is definitely an On-line Youtube Channel. I’ve seen this before. All facts are true and I believe that it should stay DoN-TiPzZz (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.114.200 (talk) [reply]
• Comment. This is a real online channel! I used this before it was shutdown . —dean10 (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The dean10 (talk • contribs) — The dean10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment. This does exist! No way is this a fake! I use his on-line channel—ClockworkSatsuma (ClockworkSatsuma) 19:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC) — ClockworkSatsuma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Whether or not is exists or not is not the question. The question is whether it is notable and verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppetry: Accounts DoN-TiPzZz, The dean10, and ClockworkSatsuma were all created within a span of 30 minutes today, and all three have as their only contribs the messages posted above or an edit to Sifu keith tv. Sifu-keith, this is not an honorable course. Obviously you have a lot of passion for your project, but Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of promotion. But if you're a video-maker, your top priority should be to get your videos back online! You need to resume making and posting your videos, and get them back up on YouTube so you have a channel -- then you can work on promoting them, especially through your MySpace page. Brianlucas 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I swear from the bottom of my heart that I did not post either of these 3… You can trace an IP Address if u reli would like to but I do not have any connection with these people and do not know whoever they are (Sifu Keith)
• I flagged the accounts as single-purpose. While I find it curious that two accounts were created and discussed here, I don't suspect that Sifu Keith was behind them. Of course, 1) the opinions of single-purpose accounts are usually devalued by the closing admin, and 2) this isn't a vote, so sheer numbers don't affect the outcome anyway. (And 3) don't forget to assume good faith in all the parties involved here.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for keeping your trust in me. Please may everyone accept all apologies from myself if this article may be deemed as not useful. I did not understand very well as i am new and wish to be able to learn from my mistakes while been here (Sifu Keith)

• Delete per nom. Bearian 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems just about notable, but the real problem would be verifiability.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 06:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable; not verifiable in any event. --Russ (talk) 13:23, 12 October 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.