Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DamonAndJo

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 delete. Non-notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I feel a more thorough discussion may be beneficiary here. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:10, 24 April 2016 (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.