Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complexly


 * 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 no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of a consensus that this should not exist as an article. This close is without prejudice for potential merge proposals that might bring this content to be merged and the title redirected to a prospective target article. BD2412 T 20:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Complexly

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As much as it pains me to attempt to take an article about the brothers green out to pasture, this one doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. It cites no independent sources, and none seem to be available and provide significant coverage independent of the CEOs or their subsidiary companies– things like DFTBA Records, the Project for Awesome, and VidCon are pretty much independently notable. A shell company to make all of these isn't going to garner much coverage, and it doesn't. If someone can provide a WP:THREE to save this, though, it'd be welcomed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Thanks for raising the alarm on the lack of independent sources; as the creator an primary maintainer of this one I should have been keeping a closer eye. I feel confident I can find some external sources on this, even though it is an odd animal; its CEOs and projects are far more notable than the firm itself. As the framework behind those, though, I feel it deserves to bee here. Updates to come! Radagast (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I've added some reliable sources on their connections to outside institutions. It's certainly true that the firm flies under the media radar as just 'the Green brothers' projects'; it's a tricky hunt. Radagast (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete given that the article fails WP:NCORP (sources are mostly YouTube/Tumblr...). Do ping me if the article is rewritten (as promised above), and I'll reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a fun edge-case of notability guidelines. If they only had one notable thing, then we'd redirect the title there. However, they have many notable productions. A potential article "list of Complexly productions" could exist - and that's basically what this article is, but I think having it at the base name makes more sense. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 06:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that directly contradict WP:INHERITORG? A list of Complexly productions isn't notable, even if all the productions are notable. The productions don't give the parent company notability. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * it's up to interpretation. My interpretation is no - it does not benefit the encyclopedia to delete this. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Elli. JackFromWisconsin (talk &#124; contribs) 19:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Elli and all above. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, I'm a little worried the Keep votes are not necessarily based off of policy. If it's an WP:IGNOREALLRULES type argument it should be stated, but it doesn't seem like 's concerns have been addressed and what aspects of this issue are being interpreted differently. For what it's worth, I would vote Keep if I could, but I can't justify the lack of WP:RS's.--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks, that's where I'm at too. If these are WP:IAR arguments I'm fine with that, and I hear that, but 1. you'd need to justify why it's beneficial to have this article and 2. you'd have to specify that the argument even is WP:IAR. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To me the best argument for keeping this article is along the lines of what [EDIT:] was somewhat saying, of there being so many notable projects and people under the umbrella of Complexly. It is very useful to have the blue link in these articles to describe the relationship between them and make it clear why these seemingly unrelated projects (VidCon, DFTBA Records, Anthropocene Reviewed, Crash Course) are actually quite closely related to each other. Without the article, Wikipedia is worse off in my opinion. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Based on the most recent comments, I'd like to give this another round for other experienced editors to review. We could keep it and let folks improve it - but, if a second AfD is warranted then c'est la vie. Or, we could draftify it. Or ...???

Seems like an alternative to deletion might be possible, but, so far "Complexly has done a lot" isn't a case for keep from a boring policy perspective.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Easy redirect to Hank Green. Without significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) there is no valid case to "keep" this article. But as an alternative to deletion, there is already a section in the main Green brother's article. Feel free to merge from the article history, but there is nothing I would deem worthy of merger right now. As a search term, Hank Green's article is where I'd want to land as a searcher. Otherwise, if we kept the article, it would continue to be a magnet for unsourced cruft (as it is now). (not watching, please )  czar  05:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just gonna comment that you are positively begging for a fight when you write "the main Green brother". I know what you meant, just having fun on that one :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose redirecting to Hank Green but support redirecting to Green brothers. Both have a strong hand in Complexly and have been co-CEOs of the company before. I added Complexly to the Green brothers article, since it needs to be there regardless of the results of this discussion. I was surprised to see it wasn't already included since it is the main company that houses almost all of their projects.--Cerebral726 (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Green brothers. The company is not separately notable to Green brothers, John Green (author), Hank Green, Vlogbrothers and the various articles on the individual channels etc. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:52, 29 May 2021 (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.