Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Blasphemy (3rd nomination)

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. John254 00:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Blasphemy

A website for wallpapers. Not exactly uncommon, and there are no independent sources cited. It's been kept before, last year, but is still essentially unsourced and lacking a proper assertion of notability. It also reads as a collection of information from the primary source. Cruftbane 12:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even though the article has survived for an amount of time, the site itself has been around for quite a while (as early as I can see, 1999), and I've found some mentions of it on g4tv.com, and mentions of it being one of the oldest digital wallpaper websites around. Zchris87v 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why are there no sources in the article? Cruftbane 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep being given a "Best X" award in 2001 (see external links) may give it the award criterion in WP:WEB, but I don't know if the award was well-known six years ago. At any rate, if one were to look at DB as a corporation, it has been covered by a reliable source (again, ZDNet for Yahoo) and it has been the Download of the Day on G4 as well. Will ^(talk) 17:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I just tagged the article with {{advert}}. If you resolve this issue by tearing out content, there's still an asserttion of notabiltiy by being in the "top 100" by a major news article - plus there is a news report that his work was copied without attribution. --Sigma 7 03:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very well known and popular website, notable. It's not just random collection of user created wallpaper like many sites - it's all by one very prolific artist who charges for his work - and many people pay willingly. The article does deserver the ad tag however, so submitting for cleanup seems the best course of action. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 18:37, 2 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.