Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelk


 * 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Nelk

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Abuse of WP:SELFPROMOTE, most sentences are poorly sourced and are first hand. Mjbmr (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, several articles showing coverage including Toronto Star, Newsweek, ABC, New Jersey, and CBS. They have over 6 million subscribers on YouTube. Also mentioned alongside other Youtubers in this NYT article. The article does need to be cleaned up, but they seem notable to me. Mukedits (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, only 5 or 6 of the 43 sources in the article come from first-hand YouTube. The rest come from third-party sources. The sources that are first-hand are used for simple factoids, such as Gasparini’s reunion with NELK, or significant portions of the “History” section that simply don’t have a third-party source. Yes, the article may need some work but bottom line they are certainly notable enough to have an article (over 6 million subscribers and one of the strongest fan bases as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abobeck11 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per both arguments on top. Every one of their videos reachs 1 million views, and they're always in the news for drinking in college parties, or for misdemeanors (disrupting peace, trespassing, etc). Additionally, they've received a lot of attention, most notably back in October 2020, when they've met President Donald Trump, via Dana White. I don't see why even nominate this page for deletion when it can be further improved. JayzBox (talk) 19:25, 22 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.