Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Icon

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. Guerillero | My Talk 05:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Icon[edit]

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

Due to lack of third-party sources, this should be deleted and merged with YOMYOMF#Content, which does appear to be notable.

Notes are on this revision

Sources 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 are all primary sources from the subject themselves.
Source 2 LA times is a single sentence mention.
Source 8 is from a tubefilter, which we know is a promotional web blog

The other articles Internet Icon (season 1) & Internet Icon (season 2) also give an identical picture of primary sources and several promotional web blogs.--Otterathome (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Otterathome (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added some more references (and will add any more that I can when I get home from school in about 13-14 hours). Also you claim that "we know" that TF is a promotional web blog as if there was a massive consensus agreeing with that claim in that discussion. While evidence is leaning towards that it in fact one, there was only one other person who replied to that post, and they just said that it's bad when an article relies too heavily on any source, not just TF. I'd also rather not blindly agree with his claim "it looks like video blog site and is probably not a particularly good source." if he admits to only glancing at it (but at first glace) Like I said though, any problem with TF has been resolved; I added new references from different websites including GigaOM and Slate, and will continue to do so at a later time today. Soulbust (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that are not digital blogs?--Otterathome (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2014 (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.