Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhilosophyTube


 * 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. Mz7 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

PhilosophyTube

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable youtuber, despite the view count. I can't find any non-trivial coverage under his YT name or his real name. Fails notability. Praxidicae (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, but after reading Wikipedia's criteria for notability, it appears that multiple (reasonably substantial but not in-depth) sources can be combined to demonstrate notability. In addition to the in-depth interview cited in the article, it appears that there were quite a few articles that met this criteria:
 * Partially about PhilosophyTube:
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2019/03/24/5-fantastic-youtubers-fighting-the-spread-of-alt-right-propaganda/
 * https://fstoppers.com/education/photography-art-do-you-even-know-what-art-300723
 * https://teneightymagazine.com/2018/10/31/seven-edutubers-you-should-be-watching/
 * Mention PhilosophyTube:
 * https://www.theguardian.com/games/2019/jan/25/success-for-me-wouldve-been-three-grand-the-gamer-who-raised-340000-for-a-trans-charity-hbomberguy
 * https://www.theguardian.com/games/2019/jan/22/how-a-57-hour-donkey-kong-twitch-stream-struck-a-blow-against-gamergate
 * http://felixonline.co.uk/articles/2019-02-08-lefty-youtubers-event-draws-large-crowds/
 * https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/yang-gang-education
 * This is an addition to his IMDb page (as linked to in the article), subscriber count, and view count. I think combined these are evidence enough to justify an article.
 * User:EthanMagnuson (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. You might want to read up on WP:RS. iMDb isn't a reliable source, subscriber and view count aren't measures of notability. Forbes is a listicle by a contributor, not editorial staff, is questionable and more of a fluffy blurb, a listicle and the rest are mentions. Praxidicae (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Still not enough. Not substantial. The best is the Guardian but it only mentions tangentially. Forbes is maybe okay, but it's only a start. The rest I'm not so sure are RS. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Forbes piece is contributor content and not editorial staff (to my knowledge.) Praxidicae (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Interviews are primary sources that do not establish notability. What is needed is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and that is lacking. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom and Cullen328 — Rutebega ( talk ) 05:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm a fan of Olly and I've looked before at whether there's enough sources for an article and decided against it. The sources included here aren't enough, in my opinion (passing mentions don't count towards notability). — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Alright, I've been convinced. Hopefully there will be sufficient content in the future to justify a page. User:EthanMagnuson (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:WEB, WP:BIO, WP:GROUP, and WP:NMEDIA. Even the sole defender of its notability admits the text is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. It may well be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 12:16, 2 May 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.