Talk:Demolition Ranch

Past AfDs
This article (or rather, an article on the same subject) previously existed at Matt Carriker, was deleted, and now that exists as a redirect to here. The first discussion and the second discussion both concluded that the channel is non-notable. I doubt there is significant coverage of the channel itself outside the context of the recent shooter wearing a shirt from the channel - and even then, I doubt that coverage qualifies as significant. In any case, there is virtually no chance that coverage of this channel will sustain past the next couple days. If no sources can be found that cover the channel outside of the context of the shirt worn by an individual and the reactions of the channel to that, then this is not a notable subject. I don't want to take it to AfD right now, but deletion needs to be considered as we should not be in the habit of creating articles that are likely to only receive the "blip" of significant coverage associated with a news cycle. If sources aren't found (which I can't) for coverage before their shirt being "featured", and if the coverage dies down (as it already has for the most part), then I'll likely start a formal discussion in a week or so at most - but nobody should feel precluded from starting one sooner if others seem to agree with my assessment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I was aware this article has borderline notability when I created it, which is why I chose to use draftspace and get a second opinion. The AFC reviewer found it to be notable, so here it is.
 * It is my understanding that Demolition Ranch is the #1 firearms YouTube channel by # of subscribers, and Vet Ranch is the #1 veterinary channel by # of subscribers. Combine that with this recent burst of coverage, and I think this has the potential to pass WP:PERSISTENCE / WP:SUSTAINED.
 * I see a couple Vet Ranch news articles from before the recent burst of coverage in my google search. Will go ahead and add those. – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, that’s why I wanted to give opportunity to improve rather than immediate AfD. I figured there may have been significant coverage I hadn’t yet seen from before this event, and given two people were convinced I didn’t think it would be respectful to immediately AfD. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you look at the first nomination from 2017 there was a source analysis that concluded it was marginally notable at best. I don't doubt that if more people had done research before voting it could've survived deletion. This was 7 years ago; it only had around 3 million subscribers at that time. There has been significantly more in-depth coverage since then. I imagine it would survive AfD now without any of the Trump-related coverage (ex: this article in India Today, this local KENS5 news piece, this article in The National Interest, this article in Unilad, this article in LAD Bible, this article in Pop Culture, etc.) There's lots more. And with the sources from the last articles and the Trump coverage, it is a very clear GNG pass.  C F A   💬  16:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)