Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defunctland

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) feminist (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defunctland[edit]

[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)

Name-dropped in a few clickbait/listicle articles like Mashable and AV Club, or passing mentions in the greater context of defunct amusement parks. Coverage does not appear to be substantial in any way.Rest of the footnotes are primary or unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: ummm... no {Mashable is reliable and it has an IMDb page. https://kotaku.com/defunctland-investigates-how-and-why-theme-parks-die-1828974088 https://scifipulse.net/kevin-perjurer-on-exploring-theme-park-histories-and-his-future-book-defunctland-guide-to-the-magic-kingdom/ please delete this.Coasterdude1 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coasterdude1: I didn't say Mashable is unreliable, just that the coverage is trivial fluff. Same with Kotaku and Sci Fi Pulse, it's just lightweight listicle articles like that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: it is a YouTube channel and there is no lightweight articles on the internet. So what do you want me to do? Why don’t you help us make the Wikipedia page better?Coasterdude1 (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sci Fi Pulse article is an interview and therefore a primary sources. Please read this page and deduce what constitutes significant coverage. Most of what's already in the article is just articles in the broader scope of abandoned amusement parks name-dropping him as but one of many people who cover the topic; the rest are just fluff pieces that also name-drop in passing. So far only the Kotaku source seems to be anywhere close to reliable. Having a YouTube channel doesn't confer notability, as I have one. Having an IMDb page doesn't confer notability, as guess what, I have one of those too. "There is no lightweight articles on the Internet" is a lie, because terms like "listicle" exist. Stuff like "10 best websites about amusement parks" doesn't translate to notability for the sites listed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Coasterdude1. There was also some coverage of their coverage on the Muppets. [1] [2] [3]. ミラ P 20:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: Those are about the Muppets in general, and only passingly about Defunctland. They just name-drop it passingly as a reference. They aren't specifically about Defunctland, just content it's covered. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: Thank you for helping me. I think that wikipedia need to change there rules to over 6 months only admin can only put a page up for deletion.Coasterdude1 (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The refs from Mashable, AV Club, SyFyWire, Kotaku and Study Breaks are all articles that are specifically about Defunctland as a website. None of them are listicles. The Study Breaks article specifically analyzes what makes Defunctland different from similar videos. These are clearly coverage of the website in secondary sources; I don't think they should be dismissed as "fluff pieces" just because the coverage is positive. Toughpigs (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Why did you relisted? Please tell me? And don't give me the wikipedia answer. Thank you.Coasterdude1 (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the "Wikipedia answer" I'm not supposed to give you is, so I cannot reply. Sandstein 16:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Seems like there's just about enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Mashable, Syfy, Kotaku, AV Club, Gizmodo, Scifi Pulse, Boing Boing, Study Breaks... Some of these are better than others (general coverage of the channel as opposed to one video, different lengths, different levels of quality), and indeed they're all blog posts, which isn't ideal, but it seems like it adds up to a weak keep to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The characterization of sources like Mashable and AVClub as “clickbait/listicles” seems unfair and misrepresentative; these and other above sources have specifically written articles about Defunctland, not just clickbait lists that happen to include it. With added documentation of Gizmodo, Kotaku, etc. coverage (also above) it appears to have sufficient notability and coverage in reliable sources. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:05, 11 January 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.