Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahogany Sessions


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Mahogany Sessions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't find any evidence this is notable, all that can be found are press releases, blogs and otherwise non-reliable sources (and maybe a few hyper local.) Fails NCREATIVE and so do it's founders. Praxidicae (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this Article violated WP:NOTADVERTISING} and it's Not notable in itself. And I think this Article is advertising a Youtube channel too. so I think it should be delete.Forest90 (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: See also WikiProject_YouTube/Notability. Determining whether YouTube channels are notable or not can be tricky. I think this one may not be notable. Top video has 10 million views, but we need more reliable secondary sources to actually be able to consider this as a notable article. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It doesnt violate WP:ADVERTISING, as the article is too small to promote itself. The site video viewing figures are 160m on aggregate with 600k regular viewers, indicating an enormous amount of interaction.  scope_creep Talk  12:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * View count is not a reliable source that demonstrates notability - it's enough to negate an A7 but does not mean a subject is suitable just because a bunch of people watched their channel - as previously discussed, follower numbers, views etc...are all easily inflated. Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - I accepted this at AfC based on, , and . Though the nom has issues with these sources, I still believe, as a whole, they adequately demonstrate notability. ~Kvng (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have a problem with unreliable sources that don't demonstrate notability. Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I looked over this more carefully and it appears to meet WikiProject_YouTube/Notability. We'll need more references of course. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The YouTube project notability standards are not accepted by the community and should not be considered. The sources shown by KVNG are not reliable. MusicAlly is a PR firm (see ), weekend special is also promoting an event and is not coverage by a reliable independent secondary source, Steve, Christopher, and Mark seem like nice blokes but do not operate a RS at talkaboutpopmusic, a program description from SXSW is also not reliable for the same reasons as weekend special. Of those four TalkAboutPopMusic is the only one that could make a reasonable claim to being RS and it seems to be pretty clearly a three person form of WP:UGC. As for the views, those are easily manipulated and should not be considered for purposes of notability. If someone has become large enough of YouTube reliable sources will cover them. That is not the case here. This is a clear delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 20 March 2019 (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.