Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smosh (4th 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) @Kate (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smosh[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG Fbifriday (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability conclusively proven in the 2nd afd, see the links there for details. And as I pointed out in the last afd, that they haven't been added to the article is not cause for deletion. FYI- I removed the notaballot infobox for now. Given that nobody has commented in the afd before me, its probably best to assume the good faith of anybody who wishes to comment. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There are tons of references available for Smosh, they just don't appear in the article. Perhaps I'll add a few, though Smosh is not my cup of tea.--Milowent (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a number of references now, as it seems the repeated AfD nominations are simply a good-faith result of the article not having references in it.--Milowent (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This have a number of reliable secondary sources to prove notability. Angryapathy (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. Many and sundry references, including one in Time Magazine, where the subject at hand is not only the primary focus, but the focus of the article. This article has no chance of being deleted given the sources. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reliable 3rd party coverage for notability. CTJF83 chat 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the extra references that were added, it meets the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (web). --Mysdaao ^talk 01:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I nominated this once before for having a lack of references but when I saw the amount that people had found i withdrew my nomination. Kyle1278 02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep and close - This is really not a WP:WEB violation. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Thanksgiving!} 02:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep same boat as Kyle... I nominated this for deletion and withdrew the nom... after three AfD's one should really look at the AfD history before making a fourth nom. It might be one thing if the AFD's were close or questionable, but each were decisive. I considered closing this myself, but decided that even though there are a ton of keeps already, that my doing so might be perceived as a COI, so voting keep with recommendation for closure.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well hey now, the sources actually look good on this one, I don't see a need to keep nominating it any longer. JBsupreme (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2009 (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.