Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings and Generals

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. ✗plicit 10:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kings and Generals[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)

Probably does not meet WP:GNG. All sources are WP:FANDOM, WP:YOUTUBE or otherwise WP:SELFPUB. Most of the text is from Fandom.com, which publishes text under CC BY-SA 3.0, so there is probably no copyright infringement, but it's not a reliable source either. Although Kings and Generals itself most probably qualifies as a reliable source (and I have used it as such on occasion), it (unfortunately) is most likely not mentioned in enough other reliable sources (WP:SIGCOV) to be notable enough for its own article. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, History, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless a lot of sources can be found and a lot of cleanup can be done. Peribirb (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly - this is a channel with almost 3M subscribers, and many of whose videos are viewed by hundreds of thousands of people - in what world doesn't it meet 'notability guidelines' more than, say, Raith Rovers F.C., which is followed by perhaps 10,000 people? (Mind you, I am not advocating removal of the Raith Rovers FC page, I am just amazed that any obscure football club / pub band of the '60s seems to be considered worthy of their page, whereas channels with million of viewers aren't) Poesio (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unspoken Keep vote in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. No reliable and independent coverage found. BilletsMauves^€500 10:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I watch this channel quite a bit myself, but unfortunately I was not able to find any reliable secondary sources that covered it, meaning that it fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2022 (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.