Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFHT


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

IFHT

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only one independent reference and that is an interview with these comedians. I can't find any significant independent references either. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. YouTube personalities are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist — but the referencing here is entirely to their own self-published content about themselves except for one interview with them on an unreliable local blog, and nothing claimed in the article entitles them to a free presumption of notability in the absence of legitimate reliable sourcing about them. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep References need updating / article needs tweak but substantial non blog media references found on a super quick search HuffPost reference Richmond News reference CTV News reference -- Tawker (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post isn't a notability-assisting source in and of itself; it can be used, for example, when it's simply reprinting a wire service article from Canadian Press, or as supplementary sourcing for stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by better sources, but the fact that one of HuffPo's own staff bloggers wrote content about them is not in and of itself add to the GNG score — especially given that it's HuffPo's BC-specific section and not HuffPo general. Richmond News and CTV Vancouver both represent local media coverage in their own hometown market, offering nothing that would make them nationally or internationally notable, and the Richmond News source is a Q&A interview which represents IFHT talking about themselves. GNG does not equal "all possible sources that exist at all" — for instance, a local fire chief would not clear GNG just because the article cited a couple of articles from the local newspaper — GNG does depend on variables such as the depth and breadth and range of coverage, and whether or not the coverage offers any facts that would actually pass a subject-specific notability criterion. One article can be enough to pass GNG if it were a Globe and Mail article verifying "IFHT win a Canadian Screen Award for Best Sketch Comedy Series" — and ten articles can be not enough to pass GNG if they represent purely local coverage supporting nothing more than "IFHT exist". Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more relist in hopes of getting more opinions from the new delsort categories.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:TOOSOON They have some minor recognition, particularly for their Ferda Girls video [] but overall the media coverage isn't there yet. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  22:16, 22 August 2017 (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.