Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DamonAndJo

DamonAndJo

(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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Found more sources:
- aol.com interview
- teenvogue.com interview

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)[reply]