Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life of Boris


 * 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 08:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Life of Boris

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a particularly notable Youtube personality, with only 800,000 subscribers. Not many third-party sources, with references consisting of Youtube videos. Zhangj1079 (T&#124;C) 14:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you done a Google search?   These are some which do not feature in the article yet, because I have been equally busy and lazy. For me, it's a Keep. My name is not dave  (talk/contribs) 14:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)  — Note to closing admin: My name is not dave (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
 * Comment - WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is a discouraged argument in deletion discussions. You should instead say why the sources are reliable or significant, the ones you mention either appear to be unreliable, or not significant.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG, the number of subscribers is irrelevant, he could have 25 subs and still be notable, what matters is at least three independent third party sources. [], [], [], [], [], [], [], etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs)
 * Comment - False, that is an incorrect reading of the notability policy. It doesn't matter whether there are 3+ sources (although that is preferred as a "soft" guideline), but what really matters is whether they are reliable and significant secondary sources. The links you posted don't appear reliable. For example, the stated goal of "Slavorum" on their website is to promote Slavic culture, in other words it's more promotion than journalism. Calvert Journal does seem more journalistic but it's not actually a significant reference, only a passing mention. Et cetera.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed some of the sources that has included are not inadequate. What do you think about the one in Estonian? Seems to be a notable Estonian web magazine; if you are using Google Chrome, then it's very easy to use Google Translate and find out what everything means in English. My name is not dave  (talk/contribs) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you mean this one then it doesn't seem significant. It essentially just says "check this video out, it's funny!" Not exactly enough to go on without original research.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I mean this. My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 16:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't allow me to access it, because I use Adblock. For the security of my computer I therefore cannot vouch for whether it's reliable. Even assuming it is, there'd have to be a couple more usable sources for it to be notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I am not convinced based on the provided sources or the ones in the article, that the article passes WP:GNG. One of them is an interview, which would be WP:PRIMARY and the others are either unreliable sources or short mentions. Maybe there might be enough if I was fluent in Russian, but absent of that the English sources are inadequate.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * none of the stuff in russian is any better, its all of a likeness, 'sensationalism' type news and passing mentions. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Based on the English and Estonian sources (and comments above describing the content of the Russian sources), there's not a GNG-pass in there yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am umimpressed with the reliability of the batch of sources above, some of which are repeated in this GNews search with a total of 21 hits. This person/channel appears to fail the WP:GNG. Delete. --Izno (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This has been a harsh lesson on notability, and more to the point, biased thinking to believe that some of these sources are reliable because I want to keep the article. Of course I do, that's completely to have and further my own interests. But no, there's the Estonian publik.delfi.ee source, which I stand by as being a good one, but not much else that's RS. Dear me, don't dig up crappy sources because you just want this article to be on Wikipedia. He's WP:TOOSOON. 81.106.34.193 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC) (User:My name is not dave, who has imposed an enforced wikibreak on his account 'til Oct. 21)
 * Delete This article contains sources which do not have significant coverage, but only brief mentions about the subject. There is also a problem that some of the sources are unreliable. Fails WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Reliable sources confirm the channel is popular but that's about it. There's nothing in the article suggesting this is a encyclopedic topic, and there's no significant coverage on which to base an article. --Michig (talk) 07:49, 24 September 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.