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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BuddyTV[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability requirements for a Wikipedia article, in that the only sources for the article are 1) it's own website, 2) trivial local coverage for Seattle (this is not Wikiseattlepedia), and 3) sites hosting paid press releases from the company. Prod was attempted a while back and removed by anon user with no explanation. COI editor came back to add more self-serving press releases and trivial coverage. Still looking for mainstream, notable coverage anywhere that could meet Wikipedia standards for an article. Without that this blatant attempt at free advertising needs to be removed. DreamGuy (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable; for example, see books Social TV or Celeb 2.0. Warden (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly doesn't meet WP:WEB criteria with current citations (definately has an issue with Wikipedia:NOTRELIABLE. Colenel Warden's book finds are interesting but more likely make BuddyTV a candidate for merging with Social media and television along with Ology and other TV commentary sites rather than having it's own article. --Joshuaism (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic certainly passes WP:WEB criteria, as well as WP:GNG. Here are some sources comprised of significant coverage from reliable third-party sources, including: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG, I'm curious as to what the problem is. An article is allowed to use primary sources, editors don't have to give a reason when declining a PROD, COI editing is not a reason for deletion and the references have acceptable depth for the purpose. I don't understand the "Wikiseattlepedia" comment and would like a verification of which actual Wikipedia policies that refers to. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sorry DreamGuy but I have to agree with the "keep cabal" on this one. 3 of the 4 sources provided by Northamerica1000 look kosher to me and unlike WP:CORP, WP:WEB doesn't require non-local supersources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 30 May 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.