Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Bad Man


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Diary of a Bad Man

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Notability not established in accordance with WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Created and deleted numerous times via A7 CSD. Recently deleted, salted, and restored with another editor indicating there are references asserting notability. However, only references are links to YT videos.  Cind. amuse  10:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)  Cind.  amuse  10:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. Apparently was mentioned on BBC Asian Network radio, but it doesn't appear to have generated breadth of coverage that WP:WEB criterion 1 requires and there is no indication of any lasting notability. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  10:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Along with not being notable enough (see above), it does not show any third party sources to go along with the videos (at least none cited).  @ d \/\/ | | | Talk 14:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is lots of info that can be taken from those sources and 15 million views isn't that bad. There is possibly going to be criticism if it is deleted because of 'racism'. Why don't you keep the article going for another few months, then see what happens? 82.46.152.122 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you saying we should keep for fear of being called racist? Or are you suggesting that this nomination and the associated vote is racist? Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  21:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment No it isn't, but forget about that. The thing is, it is known through the internet but I don't think the press have done an interview with him, but is that what you need? What if in interviews, he talks about the show and the background behind it, I would have thought that would be reliable info? Emirates123 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply Perhaps. It depends where the interviews are as per WP:RS. Also, as outlined in WP:WEB, the subject needs to be covered in depth in multiple non-trivial works that are independent of the subject. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  15:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only information appears to come from ostensibly primary sources, i.e., the videos themselves and a couple of interviews of dubious credibility with the creator. There does not appear to be any actual coverage from multiple reliable sources of the subject outside of that. Ultimately does not meet WP:GNG and there is no actual sourceable content on which to base an article. "15 million views isn't that bad"... perhaps, but it does not convey encyclopedic notability if a reliable source hasn't written about it or discussed it. -- Kinu t /c  20:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Self produced work which is not notable. All sources appear to be video themselves and promos for videos. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2011 (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.