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.
This article is heavily reliant on one or two sources to support the various statmements within, and those sources do not seem to support its notability as a whole as being "significant coverage in reliable sources". Much of it is to the Mashable piece, a post on the Tumblr blog "Popsessed", and mentions in various lists of things on social media but nothing of note (not even at the top of the lists). There's been no further press since 2012. I cannot seem to find anything in Google beyond what's already in use on the article, and similar clickbait lists. This is currently listed as a good article, but that simply regards how well written it is it seems.
So to sum up, sourcing is minimal and reliant on interviews with the creator on social media sites, and poor rankings in unimportant lists of random websites' favorite things. —
Ryūlóng (
琉竜)
17:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The interview might be a primary source but it's still independent from the subject. It's also not devoid of secondary coverage (there's quite a few paragraphs before it goes into the interview). I can start up a
WP:RSN thread on NYU Local if you'd like.
23W20:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Please see
WP:IS: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example."
23W21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding how the definition of an independent source does not factor in whether it is primary, secondary or tertiary; please read
WP:IS.
whether or not the interview portion can be used to demonstrate notability, the independent, secondary commentary can.
23W21:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)reply
y'know how sometimes interviews pepper in other (secondary) commentary? This interview has that (and more!) Hell, if you keep the first seven or so paragraphs you have a decent-sized review. But I'm just repeating myself now so I'll go.
23W22:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)reply
You are right that the article does feature a quite lofty review but it just shows the ephemerality and
bare notability as mentioned elsewhere in the debate.—
Ryūlóng (
琉竜)
22:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete: Doesn't meet notability requirements, and as mentioned above, the sources aren't the best. If you want to put it into perspective, this series' account only has 20k subscribers, whereas the top accounts have tens of millions.
Upjav (
talk)
03:07, 20 August 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.
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.
This article is heavily reliant on one or two sources to support the various statmements within, and those sources do not seem to support its notability as a whole as being "significant coverage in reliable sources". Much of it is to the Mashable piece, a post on the Tumblr blog "Popsessed", and mentions in various lists of things on social media but nothing of note (not even at the top of the lists). There's been no further press since 2012. I cannot seem to find anything in Google beyond what's already in use on the article, and similar clickbait lists. This is currently listed as a good article, but that simply regards how well written it is it seems.
So to sum up, sourcing is minimal and reliant on interviews with the creator on social media sites, and poor rankings in unimportant lists of random websites' favorite things. —
Ryūlóng (
琉竜)
17:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The interview might be a primary source but it's still independent from the subject. It's also not devoid of secondary coverage (there's quite a few paragraphs before it goes into the interview). I can start up a
WP:RSN thread on NYU Local if you'd like.
23W20:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Please see
WP:IS: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example."
23W21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding how the definition of an independent source does not factor in whether it is primary, secondary or tertiary; please read
WP:IS.
whether or not the interview portion can be used to demonstrate notability, the independent, secondary commentary can.
23W21:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)reply
y'know how sometimes interviews pepper in other (secondary) commentary? This interview has that (and more!) Hell, if you keep the first seven or so paragraphs you have a decent-sized review. But I'm just repeating myself now so I'll go.
23W22:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)reply
You are right that the article does feature a quite lofty review but it just shows the ephemerality and
bare notability as mentioned elsewhere in the debate.—
Ryūlóng (
琉竜)
22:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete: Doesn't meet notability requirements, and as mentioned above, the sources aren't the best. If you want to put it into perspective, this series' account only has 20k subscribers, whereas the top accounts have tens of millions.
Upjav (
talk)
03:07, 20 August 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.