Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Bad Man (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 19:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Diary of a Bad Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was previously deleted, but restored based on a couple of sources presented at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 1 without prejudice to another discussion... so here it is. While there appear to be a handful of reliable sources out there, I do not believe WP:GNG is met. Kinu t/c 06:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Redirect to List of YouTube personalities. I found two lone sources for this series that would give notability. I did find a third source that briefly mentions the series being one of the most watched YT videos in the UK last year, but it was only briefly mentioned. YT hits do not really give notability and this brief of a mention would be trivial at best. Now what I do recommend is adding Humza Arshad's name to the list of YouTube personalities, listing a brief synopsis of the series, and redirecting there. Since he does have the two sources, it's reasonable enough to rationalize him being on that page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has two sources proving its notable, then it passes the WP:GNG. You are constantly trying to convince people they need more than that. By your personal standards 90% of Wikipedia articles would be eliminated. Dream Focus 15:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I've added him in to the H section of the YT page, as they're sorted by the first letter of their name, and put in a brief note of what he does. All that we need now is to have it be a redirectTokyogirl79 (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional: I recommend a salting/protection for the page if/when it gets redirected, as I noticed that it eventually became necessary for Arshad's entry due to it getting repeatedly re-added. Considering that, it's reasonable enough to expect this to happen here as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the sources in the article, I want to say that I've been told on multiple occasions that the Huffington Post isn't usable as source to show notability due to it being pretty much a glorified blog that anyone can contribute to. This one doesn't mention the series in the actual article. Would anyone know if this is usable at all?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the Huffington Post is a reliable source to show notability. Not anyone can contribute to it, they have editorial oversight, and this is an actual newspaper. If part of the site allows anything, then that part can be questioned, but certainly not the rest of it where paid professional newspaper people handle things. Dream Focus 15:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the sources in the article, I want to say that I've been told on multiple occasions that the Huffington Post isn't usable as source to show notability due to it being pretty much a glorified blog that anyone can contribute to. This one doesn't mention the series in the actual article. Would anyone know if this is usable at all?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Humza Arshad. I took part of the first DRV, and while participation was low the outcome was to allow recreation of Humza Arshad, which appears to have been recreated and subsequently deleted a few times since. I cannot comment on the content of those versions regarding A3, but deletion per G4 was not warranted anymore, and A7 seems kind of moot considering the amount of community discussion available. The links I had found are dead now (I could try looking for them again, but IIRC they were an interview by BBC Asia and a couple of local articles), but this one works, and adding the two sources from the second DRV I still think that WP:BIO is sufficiently met — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 26 October 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 2. Snotbot t • c » 04:08, 2 November 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, MBisanz talk 00:19, 10 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Hold up, now. This series has been covered by organizations such as the BBC, The Guardian, Sky News and others. It was hidden mainly because the author failed to include a "References" section (a situation since corrected by yours truly). There's plenty of verifiable, objective evidence from independent sources here. Faustus37 (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Faustus37 (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In the deletion review that had the article restored, two reliable sources providing ample coverage were shown. The Huffington Post [1] and The Guardian [2] Dream Focus 15:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources evidenced by editors above. Meets WP:GNG quite obviously. And also trout nom for nominating articles for deletion despite acknowledging "there appear to be a handful of reliable sources out there", which is the requirement for notability. --Cyclopiatalk 16:43, 18 November 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.