Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy Tube


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy Tube

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

still not a notable youtuber, the sources that were provided are either not independent coverage or not reliable (blogs that aren't otherwise rs) and interviews. See also the previous AFD Praxidicae (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep. The Times article is RS and, as far as I can tell without paying to read it all, is not purely an interview. The Evening Standard article looks likewise and, unless we think that Harriet Brewis is HBomberguy in disguise (which seems unlikely given that she has what looks to be a genuine Twitter account), then it seems to be independent. The Vox review looks independent too. This does seem like we have scraped over the line of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I would like to see the use of Twitter as a reference removed but based on what is good here I think it is good enough to keep and work on improving further. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Following clarification of the independence of the references I'm switching from weak keep to keep. There are still issues to resolve here but I think this is safe for basic notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Some pretty weak sourcing, and lots of really crap sourcing. Waggie (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep per DanielRigal's !vote above. I don't like using Twitter as a source, either, but that looks to be more a matter for ordinary editing to fix. (Interviews can count towards wiki-notability, because they represent the "world at large" paying attention to the subject. Claims in them have to be taken with care as they are best regarded as primary sources, but that's beside the point in the present case.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Editing to strike the adjective. After taking another chance to evaluate the sources, I don't think my "keep" !vote needs to be qualified. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A passing mention in the news, just for fun. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep (as re-creator): the nominator's rationale is bizarre. What about The Times or Vox is not reliable? I have read the full Times source and I can confirm it is not an interview. (I can also confirm Harriet Brewis is completely unrelated to HBomberguy—see this Twitter thread.) Not sure what relevance Twitter or some "crap sourcing" has to this discussion since I made it completely clear which sources relate to the claim I make of notability.  I considered this long and hard before moving the article to mainspace and I saw in-depth coverage of two aspects of Thorn's recent works (Shakespeare stream and "Men. Abuse. Trauma") and non-trivial coverage of a third (philosophy education) in multiple works (which can be combined to show notability per WP:BASIC). I find it quite bizarre that I wrote a lengthy rationale here justifying notability and then the nominator has ignored all of it in favour of unsubstantiated assertion that all of the sources are "not independent coverage or not reliable". I repeat: what of The Times or Vox? They also say "see the previous AfD" but that's something I mentioned—five of the seven sources that I present for notability have been released since that AfD. I note that XOR'easter also believes interviews can count towards notability, something I wanted to avoid as I know it's a disputed point, but if we agree with that premise then indeed the Evening Standard and BBC Radio sources provided very strong additional evidence of notability. — Bilorv ( talk ) 06:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve: the information and sources are there. He’s also done stage acting in some notable productions, stand-up, and writing (for HuffPost UK and The Independent), which could be incorporated as well. Also minimal use of primary sources, like for birthdays, is fine so long as there are enough secondary/tertiary sources to prove notability — Starklinson, 3 September 2019


 * 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.