Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cocomelon – Nursery Rhymes


 * 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 redirect to List of most-subscribed YouTube channels. And protect. I see there is a consensus for removing the article for e.g notability and paid editing reasons. Some people have proposed to restore the previous redirect; while most people want a deletion nobody has stated a reason for deletion over redirection and the deletion policy favours redirection if it's feasible per WP:ATD-R, although only barely. Full protection has been recommended and in light of the promotion concerns will be applied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Cocomelon – Nursery Rhymes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:GNG. The current 3 sources included in the article only show the number of YouTube subscribers and views the channel has which not enough to show notability (trivial coverage, and YouTube is not a WP:RS). A WP:BEFORE google search reveals videos made by Cocomelon on several social media platforms or YouTube subscriber counts. The only WP:RS source is but a topic needs significant coverage and one source is not enough for notability. --KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 18:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 18:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * User 2yechan was hired by Treasure Studio Inc, the parent company for CoCoMelon. The user has been instructed to write information regarding the history of CoCoMelon company, which does not have much media presence outside of YouTube. The CoCoMelon Wikipedia page is a young work in progress, and current lack of sources does not justify grounds for deletion. All video screenshots are justified by fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.226.132 (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Unscrupulous paid editing; burn it to the ground. It might be possible to write a decent article using reliable sources like, but where decent sources exist, they seem to discuss "Kids YouTube" as a whole, rather than any particular channel. This page is a shady and secretive company trying to manage its own reputation by violating Wikipedia policy. It needs to go. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User 2yechan believes that nothing is further from the truth. With 10 minutes of research or by simply clicking on the links provided in the wikipedia page one could see that CoCoMelon had nothing to do with the children's video YouTube Scandal. We have always been dedicated to providing free education for children since the inception of YouTube. Be wary of bias created by internet articles. The user 2yechan apologizes for formatting errors that may have occured, these were created in ignorance of the Wikipedia method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.226.132 (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please disclose your relationship with Cocomelon? How are you able to speak for 2yechan? TheAwesome  Hwyh  17:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I created this page last year as a redirect to List of most-subscribed YouTube channels and have had almost no involvement with it since. If this AfD determines that the page should not be kept as an article, I believe we would be best served by redirecting it again to the YouTube list, where Cocomelon is among the highest-ranked channels, rather than deleting it outright.  Life of Tau 22:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Sourced" to the company's YouTube videos; no other sources actually documenting the company properly, cited (now or in the original article) or to be found; an edit history full of whitewashing like Special:Diff/907435630; edits from IP accounts writing the content that geolocate only either to Irvine, California (the formal location of the purported parent company) or to Murmansk (which I suspect might be a clue to the reason for the secretiveness); and Yes, let's maintain that privacy by removing this unverifiable unreliably sourced sneaky advertising through paid editing.  The redirect is the right answer. Uncle G (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The page history is full of anonymous IPs doing weird things, like editing other users' sandboxes, including apparently trying to get them deleted, and attempting to answer a semi-protected edit request, and mucking about with automated reports and bot-task pages. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For reference's sake, Murmansk: 5.142.197.66, 5.142.228.103, 95.52.16.54, 95.54.185.123, 95.54.188.148, 178.68.118.42, 178.68.127.202. Irvine: 70.169.226.132, 98.185.164.198. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, restore the redirect and protect. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of most-subscribed YouTube channels per pretty much everyone else. I think that there could be some potential for notability in this article but in its current state is too far gone to even try to fix. TheAwesome  Hwyh  04:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  TheAwesome  Hwyh  04:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  TheAwesome  Hwyh  04:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  TheAwesome  Hwyh  04:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --KAP03 (Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 04:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete -- undisclosed paid editing about a non-notable YouTune channel, with a promotional tone and no meaningful sources. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  18:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, Per above,not significant secondary sources, promotional Alex-h (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: If you search for this on Google but exclude results from YouTube and Dailymotion, you find exactly zero reliable sources. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Asolutely no evidence that the company is notable outside of their own links Dexxtrall (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. A YouTube channel with 50M+ subscribers should be notable. The fact that the only coverage we can find are people writing (e.g. in the WSJ) who are these guys? is somewhat disturbing. But we can't make an article out of that, and the paid-editing issue also means that the existing content is unusable and that keeping an article free of future promotion is not going to be easy. Better just to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm currently trying to rescue this article with a "criticism" section, as the question of who exactly makes these videos seems to be what the media focuses on. I don't know if the sources found are enough, though. (Also, how fast do you bet the I.P adresses will try to remove it? I give it a day.) TheAwesome  Hwyh  18:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your section on criticism/controversy is good, but looking at the available sources, IMO they just aren't in-depth enough about this particular channel to sustain an article on it. That text could be incorporated, however, into YouTube or List of most-subscribed YouTube channels. The former already discusses controversies over child-oriented videos, and the latter already has a section about milestones and reactions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after I wrote it I was thinking that too I woudn't have any problems with it being incorporated into another article if this one got deleted. TheAwesome  Hwyh  18:00, 15 August 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.