Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Edinger (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  00:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Evan Edinger
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough significant coverage by reliable secondary sources, mostly primary sources. Sources cover him but not in a substantial way. Throast (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further discussion on whether specific sources count towards WP:SIGCOV can help develop a consensus.
 * Keep As far as I can see, this page passes Wikipedia's general inclusion threshold. From reading through the 18 sources listed, one is on the BBC radio interviewing him directly about his life as a YouTube star and another by the SWLondoner interviews him about his his worklife which lends to the notability which is in question. That BBC report as well as the 2 inclusions on the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire Show fulfill verifyability. Further references in Mashable and other online publications definitely seem to aid in the notability requirement, so I do not think this page suits the criteria required for deletion as stated. It could definitely use a cleanup though. For instance, possibly by replacing the primary source listed for his hometown with one of the large number of secondary sources found upon a cursory search, but a lot of those sites appear to be content aggregators so I wouldn't class them as too reliable. But as far as I can tell, most info on this page seems to be cited by the aforementioned reliable secondary sources.TwinTelepathy (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk 17:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Google search resulted in several meaningful coverage from reliable, independent, secondary sources such as a review on his digital content by New Media Rockstars at [], a review on Favorite Evan Edinger moments by Ten Eighty Magazine at [], and a story of his career by American Expat Finance at []. Believe subject satisfies WP:SIGCOV which states "significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, subject is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roulisegee (talk • contribs) 2021-04-09T18:30:44 (UTC)
 * Keep per, the other editor (who left their comment unsigned), and the prior AfD. See 's comment. Opal&#124;zukor (discuss) 09:05, 16 April 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.