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 first source is quite biased. Not sure about it's reliability, but it could be used for a "criticism" bit. Second was what I was talking about. Third is better, could get a pass (though I don't think the Infographics Show is a kids' series). Fourth, fifth, and seventh are trivial mentions. Sixth is on a site which does articles on "How much money does (insert popular YouTuber) make", doubt that would be meaningful.
"Why havn't you improved the article now?" is not an appropriate reply in an AFD. The user does not need to take time out of their day to do anything but prove that there are sources in an AFD if they support "keep", they're not obligated to fix the article right away.
★Trekker (
talk)
20:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Its narrow, but I'm going with week keep. Besides the sources found by the above user there is also
this from
Dread Central,
this from Medium and
this. There are also several articles I saw which mention the series as a reliable and good YT channel while not being specifically about the channel. I think a reception section can be built on that.
★Trekker (
talk)
21:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The first source looks like a trivial promotion, the second source is most likely
user-generated, and the third source leans closer towards a trivial mention. When there are not much articles significantly covering a subject, the notability becomes more disputed.
❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (
talk |
contribs)
02:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
BTW, don't bother responding. I'm not interested in looking for an argument or debate in this AfD. I've said what I have said. So, I won't reply any further. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE)03:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Apparently, I didn't search well enough, in which the Google News search brings up several articles bringing up the Infographics Show (I'm kinda embarrassed).
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13],
[14],
[15]. While most aren't detailed in the mentions, maybe this could push for a weak article.
❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (
talk |
contribs)
19:11, 5 June 2020 (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.
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 first source is quite biased. Not sure about it's reliability, but it could be used for a "criticism" bit. Second was what I was talking about. Third is better, could get a pass (though I don't think the Infographics Show is a kids' series). Fourth, fifth, and seventh are trivial mentions. Sixth is on a site which does articles on "How much money does (insert popular YouTuber) make", doubt that would be meaningful.
"Why havn't you improved the article now?" is not an appropriate reply in an AFD. The user does not need to take time out of their day to do anything but prove that there are sources in an AFD if they support "keep", they're not obligated to fix the article right away.
★Trekker (
talk)
20:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Its narrow, but I'm going with week keep. Besides the sources found by the above user there is also
this from
Dread Central,
this from Medium and
this. There are also several articles I saw which mention the series as a reliable and good YT channel while not being specifically about the channel. I think a reception section can be built on that.
★Trekker (
talk)
21:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The first source looks like a trivial promotion, the second source is most likely
user-generated, and the third source leans closer towards a trivial mention. When there are not much articles significantly covering a subject, the notability becomes more disputed.
❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (
talk |
contribs)
02:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
BTW, don't bother responding. I'm not interested in looking for an argument or debate in this AfD. I've said what I have said. So, I won't reply any further. My vote stands. ASTIG😎(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE)03:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Apparently, I didn't search well enough, in which the Google News search brings up several articles bringing up the Infographics Show (I'm kinda embarrassed).
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13],
[14],
[15]. While most aren't detailed in the mentions, maybe this could push for a weak article.
❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (
talk |
contribs)
19:11, 5 June 2020 (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.