Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AsapScience


 * 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. Tone 11:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

AsapScience

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass WP:N or WP:RS, the sources are not notable or independent of the subject, and there is no evidence that this channel has any notability at all. WikiSmartLife (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  03:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  03:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  03:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  03:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep A quick look at GNews shows the presence of continued, WP:SUSTAINED coverage, a lot of which is also SIGNIFICANT. Meets WP:GNG. -- qedk ( t  桜  c ) 05:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , making a "quick look" in a news browser does not prove notability. The article lacks reliable sources independent of the subject, and even if it is sustained, the subject of this article is not widely known and is usually only looked at by its fans. AsapScience has nothing special to distinguish it from other channels, and it is not as widely known as others such as Vsauce. WikiSmartLife (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you purposely ignore the point I was trying to make by arguing a straw man? I said that even a quick look at GNews would show you that the channel has a decent amount of coverage from reliable, third-party sources which meet SUSTAINED and a decent amount which also meets SIGNIFICANT coverage guidelines. With thanks. -- qedk ( t  桜  c ) 09:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * AsapScience is a channel that is a bit notable, of course, but not enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. There is coverage in browsers, but there are no mentions in sites independent of the subject. The channel is known, but only individually. It is not an important channel. Please double-check the Wikipedia notability guidelines. It has a lot of coverage, but this doesn't indicate that it is notable. WikiSmartLife (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you're talking about. And what does There is coverage in browsers, but there are no mentions in sites independent of the subject. mean? There is significant coverage in The Daily Dot (RS), a passing mention in Inc42 (RS) about their huge number of subs, another sigcov-meeting article on Polygon (RS), and there's more too. So I do not understand what you say when you say that there are no mentions of the channel on independent sites, as these sources are both reliable and independent. -- qedk ( t  桜  c ) 10:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sure, the article could be referenced better to reduce use of primary sources, but there is sufficient notability demonstrated here. The CBC and PinkNews articles from 2014 are good coverage from notable and independent sources (contrary to what is claimed in the nomination). They have published a book in 2015, with a mainstream publisher, under the channel's name. That is a sustained period of notability. They don't get as much coverage as they used to, which is hardly surprising given that making videos week in and week out is less newsworthy than the initial splash they made, but they are still getting regular low level coverage, as can be seen if you restrict the Google search to just the past year. The article is at least as good as it was almost 5 years ago. I can't see a reason to delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Low level coverage is not enough. AsapScience is not notable. It is really as simple as that. They have not got attention of many people, and they might have significant coverage, but they are only known to their fans and are not important enough to have an article. WikiSmartLife (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned low level regular coverage in the last year but also much more significant coverage in the past so, obviously, I was not claiming that low level coverage was enough. Notability is not temporary. We do not require that every single video that they make gets a write up in the press to demonstrate notability on an ongoing basis any more than we consider deleting the article on, say, Kaiser William II even though he isn't getting as much press coverage as he used to. The best of the sources we have are significant and reliable. I really don't see why you think that there is a deletion case here, and I say that as someone who considers themselves a "deletionist". Maybe you can explain why you think that the "the sources are not notable or independent of the subject"? I know that there is an over-reliance on primary sources for verification but we should be judging by the best of the independent sources available when we consider notability. The CBC and PinkNews references seem unimpeachable to me. CBC is the national broadcaster of Canada and PinkNews is a UK based publication showing an international interest in this Canadian channel. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources currently used in the article (presented by QEDK and DanielRigal) look pretty reliable, and the fact that AsapScience has garnered coverage in a multitude of news publications (from different countries, and which are not fanbases) is indicative of notability. The article could surely be improved to use fewer WP:SPS, and there indeed exist several more reliable sources that have more than trivial mentions. For example, there is a very descriptive interview (in a third-party publication), recognition from Studio71 (a prominent media company), and evidence of their influence online. The continuous publication of such sources fulfills WP:SUSTAINED and the information given (beyond strict metrics and video content) passes WP:GNG. ComplexRational (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.