Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SourceFed hosts


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

SourceFed hosts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fancruft article made in good faith, but is redundant. The content is just a copy and paste of other biographical articles. Everything else not notable because it is either unsourced, or sourced to a primary source. E.g. Reddit user page, youtube videos, subjects own website etc. Could be seen to resemble a type of Coatrack. I would suggest a category, but it would be too small to be worthwhile. So Delete. Otterathome (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  13:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Note/Keep

Probably going to add to this note later, but for now I have to ask... "really?" E.g. Reddit user page, youtube videos, subjects own website etc.

So 1 Reddit user page, 3 youtube videos (+1 other YT link), subjects own website (so 1 Tumblr user page, and 1 link to Elliott's website) is just supposed to be the basis for deletion? Those references, along with 1 SourceFed ref, and 2 Revision3 references, add up to 10. So I'm guessing the other 32 just don't count? Even though they're from sources such as Forbes, Tubefilter, Huffington Post, the CEA Blog, IGN, and PBS? In regards to the other 10 references, I'm almost entirely sure that the usage of those references do not directly violate WP:USINGSPS. All 42 references combine to establish the notability of this article. I feel like other points could be corrected, which could lead to portions of the article being reworded or rewritten but it shouldn't be deleted. Soulbust (talk)
 * SF, R3, cea, IGN, PBS are all primary sources, they all worked together in an official capacity. You haven't explained why it's not redundant. None of the sources discuss the subjects as a group, and even then only some are actually about the subjects being hosts in the show. So you've just made a list of biographies. Using every possible primary source doesn't make it notable.--Otterathome (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I already agreed that SF and R3 are primary sources. Either way, it still has Huff Post, Forbes and Tubefilter refs, along with other references. The article is not just a copy+paste of other articles. For those hosts that already have their own articles, it includes information in a condensed form, and includes links to their own articles. For those hosts who do not have their own articles, it includes information on them too, in a similarly condensed form. It does speak about the hosts as a group, and if you believe it doesn't, you could always offer advice on how to form a section in the article that speaks about them as a group, or do it yourself. I'm working on one currently. Soulbust (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, primary sources are not disallowed on wikipedia. This article also includes a solid amount non-primary sources, so I still do not know how this article can be deleted on those grounds. Soulbust (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2014 (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.