Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DamonAndJo: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →DamonAndJo: weak |
Delete |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:*They have made unique contributions to the field. |
:*They have made unique contributions to the field. |
||
:My gut tells me that they are borderline and it's too early. But the coverage is significant, the sources reliable (at least LA Times and TeenVogue), secondary, and independent, so it passes [[WP:GNG]] no matter what I think, so '''weak keep'''. -- [[User:Ram-Man|RM]] 03:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC) |
:My gut tells me that they are borderline and it's too early. But the coverage is significant, the sources reliable (at least LA Times and TeenVogue), secondary, and independent, so it passes [[WP:GNG]] no matter what I think, so '''weak keep'''. -- [[User:Ram-Man|RM]] 03:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' at best for now and wait for better thus a better notable article and therefore having confidently keeping. [[User:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">'''S'''wister'''T'''wister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 05:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:49, 23 April 2016
- DamonAndJo (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)
No notability, speedy delete removed. Laber□T 22:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: I removed the A7 as the creator added a claim of significance, but only reliable source is [1]. The rest are blogs, press releases, and mentions. Esquivalience t 01:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Found more sources:
- Looking at WP:ENT:
- They have multiple productions
- 210,000 subscribers (which makes them top ~10,000 in the world, not exceptional, but nearly enough to make a living)
- They have made unique contributions to the field.
- My gut tells me that they are borderline and it's too early. But the coverage is significant, the sources reliable (at least LA Times and TeenVogue), secondary, and independent, so it passes WP:GNG no matter what I think, so weak keep. -- RM 03:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete at best for now and wait for better thus a better notable article and therefore having confidently keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)