Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CinemaSins (2nd nomination)

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. Tone 21:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaSins

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a long article and have been written with much care and time. Though I found most of the references used are either youtube or twitter (mostly), there are some blogs. There are a bunch of huffington posts, but they have been mostly syndicated except one, and all of these posts have very limited information about the youtube channel itself. My main concern behind this nomination of Deletion Discussion is to ask the fellow editors if an article can be written based upon mostly on unreliable sources. Also, if the channel can be said notable from the references provided in the article. Also, the article was up here for AFD during 2014, where the two keep votes sounded very weak.Chiro725 (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chiro725 (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chiro725 (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Chiro725 (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article WP:INTROTODELETE. The cultural impact of CinemaSins is pretty much common knowledge at this point. The fact the article is not great quality doesn't discredit that. The existing sources may be bad, but did you attempt to find sources?

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. hopefully that helps. JT_dale^Talk~ 17:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JTdale In my detailed nomination narration, I did mention that my intention was primarily to attract more attention to the article, not to delete it fiercely. I wanted to have valuable comments just like what you have marked. --Chiro725 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As JTDale said, deletion should not be used to improve an article, and I agree. There are more sources that they listed to try to improve the article, and those should be at least proposed on the talk page, instead of having to be thrown in a deletion discussion. And due to the nature of the channel, I would not expect for there to be very much material (Wikipedia) content in the form of major sources, besides something here and there. CinemaSins makes its own content, and any more notable material would be the things that fans and critics write about it. --PolyversialMind (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.