Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll Station (YouTube Channel)


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Troll Station (YouTube Channel)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a youtube channel. They got significant buzz and sensationalism for their recent controversial pitch invasions, but the channel itself isn't notable and looks too much of a self-promotion. Harsh (talk)  16:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Harsh  (talk)  16:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I have no affiliation with Troll Station and believe their channel to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. They are very popular at the moment and this will only increase; the recent pitch invasions prove they are on the rise. To combat your second point about this being like self-promotion, I must reiterate that I am not affiliated with Troll Station and have tried to write the article as impartially as possible. This article should not be deleted. Edfilmsuk (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not mean you have affiliation with the channel. Youtube, IMDB and twitter aren't considered reliable sources per wikipedia policy. All other sources in the article relate to one single event, i.e the pitch invasion. The channel itself isn't notable. Harsh (talk)  18:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, I disagree. The content cited by IMDB/YouTube/Twitter is purely rudimentary, i.e to confirm the identities of Troll Station's key members and reference their videos. Their previous pranks are "notable" and interesting in the controversy that they generated. The pitch invasion just happens to be the one that stood out the most. Bearing in mind the fact that the event itself is very "notable" and that similar controversial events are likely to occur in the foreseeable future, it would be viable to keep this page. Edfilmsuk (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Why don't you provide some reliable, secondary and independent sources to verify their notability, apart from that controversy. Youtube views don't warrant notability. Harsh (talk)  21:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. While there are claims of the channel being controversial, I fail to see where this channel has really gained that much coverage in the news. There was coverage for one fairly minor incident last month, but I can't see where this was a major enough event to really warrant keeping on that basis alone. It pretty much falls under WP:ONEEVENT when you get down to it, since only a handful of news outlets bothered to write about it and the whole thing was forgotten fairly quickly. Just being in the news briefly isn't enough to warrant having an article- heck, look at Belle Knox. She received far, far more coverage than this channel did and the first incarnation of the article was still deleted, despite worldwide coverage. This channel has received maybe .001% of the same coverage and even then it's limited to UK papers. As far as the other pranks go, none of them gained any coverage in reliable sources, which is what you'd need to prove notability. You have WP:PRIMARY sources (official YT channel, Twitter, etc) and WP:TRIVIAL sources (IMDb), but they cannot show notability. Something is not automatically notable because it exists (WP:ITEXISTS), it's interesting (WP:INTERESTING), or even because it's popular (WP:ITSPOPULAR), although I will say that the channel's subscriber numbers are fairly low in comparison to other people on YouTube. (My favorite example is to hold up Cryaotic, someone who has almost 2 million subscribers and still fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines.) When/if the channel gains more coverage they could potentially be re-added, but at this time it is pretty much WP:TOOSOON for an entry. We can't guarantee that the channel will gain more coverage (WP:CRYSTAL), as most media coverage of these sort of things is sort of the luck of the draw. For every Alan Abel there are at least a thousand others who tried to become a professional prankster and maybe got a little coverage, but ultimately failed because the media didn't give them any coverage. You can't guarantee that they'll be in the news again. Rory, I know that you want to show your fandom and keep the page, but the channel just isn't notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I was just passing through and wanted to reply to the above user; while there are some valid arguments that this article doesn't come under Wikipedia's terms of notability, it is more common knowledge that Troll Station are reputable. And while there are no 100% guarantees that they'll be in the news again, the likelihood of it happening is higher than it not. If we get things into perspective, isn't Wikipedia all about information about interesting subjects? Regardless of Wikipedia's arcane technicalities, doesn't it just come down to that? 109.148.3.146 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have to show notability by providing coverage in reliable sources. Saying that something is interesting (WP:ITSINTERESTING) or that it's likely to be in the news again (WP:CRYSTAL) are not valid reasons to keep an article. As far as the coverage below goes, that is a step in the right direction. The only big problem is that some of those news stories are just reposts of videos, so they'd be considered WP:TRIVIAL at best. It's not that I'm ever particularly gung ho about deleting a page, just that I want to ensure that if something does survive AfD that it won't be deleted in a year's time when standards become more strict. (And they always become more strict, sadly.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG and cannot be deleted because of WP:ONEEVENT as there's been lots of reliable coverage prior to the pitch invasion prank. etc.--Theamazo (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Theamazo, Anonymous and TokyoGirl for your input. I have to agree with anon when he/she insinuates that there are many pages far less notable than Troll Station that have surprisingly survived existence, let alone deletion. For example, even typing in Troll Station on Wikipedia directs you to Troll (research station) which I must say is unremarkable at best. Edfilmsuk (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep - There's plenty of news articles out there, I'll admit most so far are of the pitch invasion but no doubt they'll do another stunt that'll receive alot more coverage. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 04:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete All the coverage is trivial "news filler" type stuff that does not provide significant coverage of the YouTube channel as a business entity. When news sources post a couple of sentences leading to click bait trying to get people to view a "funny video", that does not establish notability. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tokyogirl's fine reasonings; the now-usual 'look, viral video, now we'll describe what's exactly going on in the video without any variation' reporting these videos have is non-notable. This isn't at GoldenPalace.com levels yet, an example that's equivalent from the last decade.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 15:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The channel has a high enough amount of views and subscribers be considered notable. News coverage has been plentiful enough to reinforce this. The channel is also up-and-coming and has reached a high enough status to satisfy Wikipedia's notability. Those who suggest deleting the page seem to convey opinions substantiated by opinion more than fact (e.g. ideas that can be summarised with 'I don't think it's notable' or 'coverage, despite being in excess, is sensationalised'. As a result, I see no reason to remove this page. BritainsFinest (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete basically one event provided news. That news did not provide a basis for notability. See analysis by Tokyogirl79. Lacks significant coverage per editor Cullen328 . The reasons given by the "keepers" are not Wikipedia notability reasons, they are reputability and number of subscribers. --Bejnar (talk) 20:29, 23 December 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.