Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cracking the Cryptic


 * 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. Seems like consensus has been achieved (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow   Talk  14:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Cracking the Cryptic
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  the Cryptic Stats )

This is a Youtube channel that received some attention from some news websites as an oddity at one specific time. There is not significant coverage in multiple sources. hippo43 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment by creator. The Guardian, USA Today, The National and The Daily Telegraph are not "some news websites"; they are major newspapers, on three different continents. The National isn't mentioned in WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources; but the other three newspapers are, each with a green tick and the comment "generally reliable". All 5 citations - which, if you read them, are clearly independent of both the subject and each other, rather [than] being a first article and a collection of clones - are specifically about the subject, and at least 2 (Usborne and Lancaster) are very substantial; that is more than "some attention", and to me that counts as "multiple".
 * 2 of the 5 sources were deleted by an IP with the WP:ES "rm source which adds nothing". Demonstrating independent coverage in USA and Africa as well as in UK is not "nothing".
 * A { {subst:Afd notice|article name|AfD discussion title}} notice would have been courteous, but I didn't get one. Narky Blert (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep there absolutely is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as shown by the links here and in the article.—indopug (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Keep Multiple news sources discuss this channel. PaulGS (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep wide coverage. We can add
 * https://inews.co.uk/light-relief/offbeat/sudoku-solving-aces-simon-athony-mark-goodliffe-youtube-coronavirus-lockdown-430588
 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8350209/Former-investment-banker-YouTube-hit-posting-videos-completing-SUDOKU-puzzles.html Naraht (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment by creator. I had found the Daily Mail citation, but did not use it. It should not be added per WP:DAILYMAIL. Narky Blert (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you, I had forgotten about the Daily Mail prohibition.Naraht (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * keep sources well over the bar. Hobit (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2020 (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.