This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Do not speedy delete. There are a lot of sources to confirm its existence. Allow me to search for more refs. - Windows72106 (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looking back at the twitter, I thought it was Hoax because of the face having a humorous look. Might not be eligible for CSD G3. Phearson (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, not eligable for G3, however, the source that you have provided just reports the same tweet with no information. Confirms exsistance but probably not notable. Replacing with A7. Phearson (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- That was the director of the show's face. (I can see why you would think it was a hoax.) I think more news will come out over the next week regarding this show, so let it stay. - Windows72106 (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL, it is not known at this point if the show is notable. Phearson (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Lately, it has only been referred to as "new noontime show". Here's a thought, can I move it to my user namespace, then move it back again as more sources come up? - Windows72106 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC).
- Sure. I'll retag this as author delete when you come back an say you've finished. Okay? Phearson (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Lately, it has only been referred to as "new noontime show". Here's a thought, can I move it to my user namespace, then move it back again as more sources come up? - Windows72106 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC).
- WP:CRYSTAL, it is not known at this point if the show is notable. Phearson (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- That was the director of the show's face. (I can see why you would think it was a hoax.) I think more news will come out over the next week regarding this show, so let it stay. - Windows72106 (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Logos
editI am removing the older logos from the article. The inclusion of these logos violates the non-free content criteria as they are not the subject of discussion in the article and appear mainly for decoration. -- Dianna (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)