Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doom9

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 no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 00:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doom9

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The forum fails WP:N and WP:WEB - especially on the term of WP:INHERITWEB. Notable information about projects they helped developed such as Media Player Classic, x264, ffdshow, VirtualDubMod should be kept to their respective articles. – The Grid (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a tough decision to make, but I'm leaning Keep. While The Grid is correct that a lot of Doom9's press stems from coverage primarily about other topics, the amount of other stuff covered in relation to Doom9 is just so vast and non-trivial that I could not possibly vote even a Week Delete. Just look at you what you would find from this GBooks search, for example. Plus, there are a few indicators of Doom9 being notable on its own terms. The well-renowned Tony Bove, for instance, recognizes Doom9 as "An extremely technical site with highly detailed information about making backup copies of DVDs and converting them to formats for playback". 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 26 December 2021 (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.