Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JacksGap


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

JacksGap

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable enough for inclusion Benboy00 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: The only 3rd party coverage I could find was a passing mention in a piece on the south african times website. This is not enough under WP:NOTABLE and WP:WEBCRIT. Benboy00 (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Found significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. Several sources listed here are lightweight, and Buzzfeed's article ludicrously written, but even that seems factual, and I think indicates some measure of notability. Established media like The Telegraph and the BBC provide more detailed coverage. The BBC sources should probably be considered a single source for purposes of notability.
 * (Five paragraphs on Jacksgap)
 * (BBC Radio 4 show has 2.4 minute interview with JackGap's creators) (30 minute audio piece with interview)
 * (BBC Radio 4 show has 2.4 minute interview with JackGap's creators) (12 minute video piece with interview)
 * (BBC Radio 4 show has 2.4 minute audio interview with JackGap's creators)
 * (BBC-produced College of Production podcast, includes JacksGap creator as one of three interviewees in a discussion of Youtube channels)
 * Lightweight online journalism, heavy on quoted tweets to tell the story.
 * More lightweight bloggy journalism.
 * ––Agyle (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Lightweight online journalism, heavy on quoted tweets to tell the story.
 * More lightweight bloggy journalism.
 * ––Agyle (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Agyle and the multiple reliable sources. Gage (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2014 (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.