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.
Keep under WP:BEFORE. Time magazine citation in the article itself. Scads (31) of OK (in varying depth) sources in News, a few crappy ones (quotes) in Books too, which is above average coverage for this sort of business. Anarchangel (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep per lack of WP:BEFORE... anyway the rationale "No sources found" is totally wrong when the article itself cites multiple sources. Cavarrone (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All sources provided are dead links, apart from the 6 word Time mention. I have been unable to find archives of them. I do admit this should've been said in the original nom.--Otterathome (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above statement is in error. The third and sixth of six sources in the article are 404 errors. Rest are fine. Note that the finding of sources in Books and News remains unaddressed by delete voters. Anarchangel (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific?--Otterathome (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The notes all click through, I think, but all of the references appear to be dead. A Google search for the "Revision3’s Nerd Magnet: iFanboy" article, which may be able to establish notability, suggests it existed (i.e., there used to be a digg link for it). Aha - The Way Back Machine has it. Combined with this http://web.archive.org/web/20081009130445/http://www.nbc4.com/entertainment/9265620/detail.html NBC article, also from wayback], notability is probably okay. It's weak - but when I couldn't open the links, I couldn't figure out how to close this, so here they are. WilyD 08:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work finding those, but those two articles barely have more than 4 sentences about the actual show. I've added them to the article.--Otterathome (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I count it at 11 and 10, respectively. The first source I'd call it the "primary" subject, and in the second one a "secondary" subject. So - meh. It certainly wasn't obvious to me how to close this, which is why I commented instead. Needs more eyes, I think. WilyD 10:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Red Herring is half about Revision3 (the production company) , unsure about the other, reads like some kind of blog/interview and has 'Courtesy of SportsNetwork.'? As it stands, it deserves a relist so all contributors get a chance to demonstrate notability.--Otterathome (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2012 (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.