Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhong (YouTuber)


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 13:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Zhong (YouTuber)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The person seems to lack notability. Numbers of the references used are particularly poor, and seen to be dubious or vanity links, and not considered reliable sources — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * delete pure vanity spam and they're all fake news sources. Praxidicae (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete All the sources are PR puffery. Mattg82 (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional article with no indication of notability (the Yahoo source is a press release provided by Accesswire). -Zanhe (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was able to provide four sources here (in-depth, and reliable and independent source), here (in-depth, and reliable and independent source),  here (in-depth, and reliable and independent source) and here (another in-depth, and reliable and independent source), from Seekerstime, Tribunebyte, Film Daily and BuzzFeed respectively, that meet our common sense definition of reliable, independent sources. Furthermore, the articles themselves are both at length and in-depth. In this way, he passes WP:GNG.Achiiiiver (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed can be a reliable source but in this case it is absolutely not per This post has not been vetted or endorsed by BuzzFeed's editorial staff. BuzzFeed Community is a place where anyone can create a post or quiz. Seekers time is not a reliable source and should be blacklisted, filmdaily.co is not a remotely reliable source and Tribunebyte is so laughably not a source that it should not just be blacklisted but nuked from orbit. none of those people are real Praxidicae (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - All sources are either primary, PR releases, or just plain fake news/spam/blackhat SEO sites (including the ones added by User:Achiiiiver), so notability has resoundingly failed to be established here. — Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 12:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete spam and promotionalism does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 23 January 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.