Deletion of Videosmarts (2nd nomination)

Comment: Fails . I'll admit that I'm suspicious of pay-to-view references; if there are so many of them, it stands to reason that we should have some free references as well. I'll gladly change my mind if someone can turn up some actual sources to read
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Thibbs' assertion that this is a "historically important example" etc is interesting and all, but it remains the assertion of an editor, as opposed to one made by multiple reliable sources.  He is not the first, of course, to advocate the curious notion that subjects lacking adequate sourcing should receive free passes nonetheless because of their "relevance" or "importance."  Unfortunately for the premise,  remains the fundamental core policy of this encyclopedia.  The response to a lack of reliable sources is not to wave off ; it is, in the blunt phrasing of , "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:V||WP:IRS)

Comment: I'd read through the links before making my earlier comment, thanks; you're also not the first person at AfD to jump to the presumption that failure to agree with your position equates with failure to have reviewed the evidence.  Secondly, as far as "unsupported claims" go, given that your Keep argument is an unsupported claim of this product's historical significance, I would have myself hesitated to raise that point.  That being said, it's regrettable how quickly you descended to invective and personal attack.  A dose of  would do you good
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL)

Comment: The nominator's rationale for deletion is fatally flawed. An unsupported claim that the article's topic is "not well-known" is a clear appeal to 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTKNOWIT)