Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billion Surprise Toys


 * 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. Invoking WP:NOTAVOTE here. Under-weighting numerous spa votes which were generally light in WP:PAG based arguments. Based on the depth of analysis and policy/guideline based points in the discussion, consensus favors deletion. WP:DRV is <<< that away. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Billion Surprise Toys

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks WP:RS, needs independent sources to establish notability, a perfect page created by a new editor through Sandbox, all signs of WP:UPE. Meeanaya (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep - nom is probably right about UPE, but since I'm not in a position to judge on that, I'm focusing just on notability. I've also removed 1/3 of the "sources" (marketing links) to help in nugget picking. To my shock, I think it might just make it - newsweek and the verge both have a sufficient amount on it to satisfy SigCov, and are both independent. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Just barely makes notability; the earworm songs and large amount of subscribers do clinch WP:N, but there's also a lot of marketing noise within the article. I did remove several more IMDb-sourced links.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete there is no criteria on the Wikipedia to meet notability based on the amount of subscribers, if there is not significant coverage it fails the general notability. The news is nothing about the business but only about a video for which a page can be attempted but definitely not about the company without major coverage in the news. Salt it  157.37.227.176 (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC) — 157.37.227.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Billion surprise toys is a popular kids brand like - ChuChutv. VfD has problems, but simply deleting it isn't the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.210.40.197 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)  — 103.210.40.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete, to establish notability only brief or routine coverage is not enough, as WP:SIGCOV is not met and fails WP:CONTN. This newly establish company requries WP:NRVE and if the company was notable it would have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. The example of ChuChu TV has very clearly WP:SUSTAINED and Billion Surprise Toys has failed here. It is used for WP:SPIP and it is too early to create a page for Billion Surprise Toys and really deletion is the correct decision at this time. A page can be created for it later once it has reliable news coverage from 5-6 sources and also it is a case of policy violation WP:UPE, it gives an another reason that the creator has failed to disclose paid contributions, so it should be definitely deleted. 157.37.183.89 (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC) — 157.37.183.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - A search shows nothing to help the subject meet WP:GNG and really WP:DEPTH is not there. The coverage of company appears to be either primary or fringe. 39.36.134.11 (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC) — 39.36.134.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Mentioned sufficient reference links to reliable resources. This article should sustain. §monopoly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.165.235 (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)  — 27.97.165.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak keep. After Nosebagbear's cleanup I think that there might be enough media coverage to meet notability requirements.  Grey joy talk 11:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment- Coverage is not for the company but it for the song and really needs much indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG. If we start accepting these channels, there will be a flood of non-notable channels pages on the Wikipedia with one or two references. Clearly non-notable company, using wiki for advertising, hired paid editor, needs to be deleted on the basis of WP:UPE. USER:MER-C is one of the specialized in handling UPE. Meeanaya (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Greyjoy’s statement. This article has enough media coverage from popular websites.TimberWoods — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.15.138.146 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)  — 49.15.138.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment- After going through all sources, it doesn't seems that company has garnered news, most of the coverage is only because of controversial Johny Johny Yes Papa version of Gangnam style and really couldn't find anything significant for the company. The video has been a part of internet meme. Meeanaya (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Question Are there a particular set of guidelines to apply to check the notability of a YouTube channel? WP:WEB doesn't seem right. WP:NCORP is definitely not correct. I know there's always WP:GNG to look at but more explicit guidelines would be helpful.  HighKing++ 16:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * take a look at WP:NYOUTUBE - Epinoia (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am ignoring the IP !votes entirely here, because it's not unlikely they are here as the result of off-wiki canvassing. However, I am not seeing consensus yet, because the sources provided in the very first "keep" !vote have not been discussed substantively.
 * Delete: fails WP:NORG & WP:GNG. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the Keep !voters have been able to provide a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Also, lots of !votes based on generic comments but no rebuttals to any of the Delete !votes or earnest debating has taken place. I too have been unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. If any Keep !voters wishes to post links to good references and debate their merit, I'm open to changing my mind. Until then, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 20:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Vanamonde's previous relist argument has still not been addressed.
 * Comment: I agree with User:HighKing, Nothing significant coming out from Weak keep voters and really they have not even replied after that, the page should be deleted with no WP:RS. Lets not waste more time on it. Meeanaya (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: The current references could be better.  It sounds weird to me that we could consider the 25 Million subscribed youtube channel, a popular kids brand youtube.fandom with multiple language content production Multi-languages, also a music artist Amazon not notable. tuddic .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.223.190 (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)  — 14.98.223.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Judging from the number of anon IP editors appearing out of nowhere for both sides, clearly this topic is receiving attention off-wiki. But our guidelines are very clear and I'm still waiting for *any* references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. To date, none have been produced.  HighKing++ 21:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Answer is on Goolge itself. People needs to know about the channel and wiki is the best place for this explanation. Goolgle search results explain's this better GoogleSearch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.210.40.197 (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:GHITS. If you can't provide links to references, don't expect others to support your !vote.  HighKing++ 11:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - it doesn't look like there is any deep and significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG - many of the sources in the article look like WP:REFBOMBING - lots of mentions, but nothing substantial - notability not established - popular does not mean notable - Epinoia (talk) 01:45, 10 September 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.