Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Infographics Show


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Infographics Show

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only non-primary source cited in the article is a Forbes contributor article, whose author is be an expert according to his bio, making the source reliable itself. However, the cited article is just a short trivial summary of the Inforaphics Show and the video shown in the article, which doesn't meet the notability guideline for web content.

A Google search for the Infographics show doesn't bring up anything meaningful besides the show's online profiles and articles talking about unrelated infographics themselves. 17:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  17:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  17:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. Note many articles may be on the subject of one of the shows but do talk about the Infographics Show at length as well, which means the sources pass WP:SIGCOV.        . AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first source is quite biased. Not sure about it's reliability, but it could be used for a "criticism" bit. Second was what I was talking about. Third is better, could get a pass (though I don't think the Infographics Show is a kids' series). Fourth, fifth, and seventh are trivial mentions. Sixth is on a site which does articles on "How much money does (insert popular YouTuber) make", doubt that would be meaningful.
 * I'll wait for other people to comment on this. If you have sources you think are reliable, why not add them to the article? 23:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Why havn't you improved the article now?" is not an appropriate reply in an AFD. The user does not need to take time out of their day to do anything but prove that there are sources in an AFD if they support "keep", they're not obligated to fix the article right away.★Trekker (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my reply. I wasn't to be uncivil. I was suggesting that if there were reliable sources, they should be put in the article to prove the subject is notable. 02:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Its narrow, but I'm going with week keep. Besides the sources found by the above user there is also this from Dread Central, this from Medium and this. There are also several articles I saw which mention the series as a reliable and good YT channel while not being specifically about the channel. I think a reception section can be built on that.★Trekker (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The first source looks like a trivial promotion, the second source is most likely user-generated, and the third source leans closer towards a trivial mention. When there are not much articles significantly covering a subject, the notability becomes more disputed. 02:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I also found a few reliable sources which talk about the show: and . These, including the ones indicated above, make the article good enough to pass WP:GNG.  ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, don't bother responding. I'm not interested in looking for an argument or debate in this AfD. I've said what I have said. So, I won't reply any further. My vote stands. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Apparently, I didn't search well enough, in which the Google News search brings up several articles bringing up the Infographics Show (I'm kinda embarrassed)., , , , , . While most aren't detailed in the mentions, maybe this could push for a weak article. 19:11, 5 June 2020 (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.