- 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. This is a bit complicated, since most of the
deletes are eloquent and detailed, whereas most of the
keeps are just throwaway comments: "keep since notable". If it hadn't been for BoyRD's specific mention of what they thought were acceptable sources this could have gone the other way: but the references they give as 1, 2, and 9 (Observer, AdAge, Adweek) are lengthy and acceptable, and--as it happens--these references are not demolished by JamesBWatson and K.e.coffman in their otherwise effective arguments. So while the
deletes are correct in saying that much of the coverage is very poor, and that the article has a high tripe content, there are good arguments to keep based on at least some solid sources.
Note to participants: as tedious as it is, detailed discussion of sources is both helpful and necessary. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]