Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nostalgia Nerd

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. After discarding two arbitrary votes and one vote whose reasoning relies solely on lots of sources, the consensus seems to be borderline keep. Nonetheless, the article needs some clean-up by removing any irrelevant sources and rewriting parts of the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgia Nerd[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)

References do not justify the notability of the subject. Fails WP:RS, WP:GNG GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. wbm1058 (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i dont think a yotuber with 400k subs is notable enough for a wikipedia article and most sources are either social media sites, youtube videos,self published posts with no indication of notability.Ratnahastin ^talk 07:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I bow down to greater knowledge. However, I have improved the sources for WP:GNG,WP:RS and will continue to do so. The person in question is often on UK TV/media, and notable for his publications. Therefore I believe of interest outside of the YouTube remit.Wikidiwikidi ^talk 13:44, 4 June 2021 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 06:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's an awful lot of sources, but when you boil them down, it's a very thin sauce... No RS at all, in fact... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. I could count The Times, published best selling books, the UK's Channel 4, National Computer Museum, Local news and magazine outlets and various scholar publications to name a few of the reliable sources.Wikidiwikidi ^talk 14:25, 11 June 2021 (GMT)

Keep. If things like ‎Commodore 65 and ‎.kkrieger are notable then people who accumulate 400,000 subscribers and 60 million views on YouTube for their reliable-source talks about such things are notable. wbm1058 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man have tons of sources 12:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep Nostalgia Nerd creates thorough & noteworthy historical and discovery work which is critically well received (some of which I've added to this article to improve), and has actually made several subjects within Wikipedia relevant; therefore appropriate for inclusion and WP:CREATIVE. There are numerous applicable links for WP:GNG. He's also referenced within numerous other Wikipedia articles; so keeping would strengthen the Wikipedia internal link structure. User:Asandersgrant User talk:Asandersgrant 14:54, 14 June 2021 (BST)
Keep He's got a significant amount of coverage and the article has over 50 references. I think he's definitely notable and deleting the article seems a bit too much. It could be improved in the long run by the addition of more sources but I don't think the article deserves deletion. Evanszoe (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of effort has been put in here with the amount of sources to try and establish notability that just isn't there Dexxtrall (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We're missing the point here. We're trying to judge him by his subscribers counts, but he has written a notable book, his work has been covered in The Times, Channel 4, and other notable media outlets, so passes WP:GNG. The article needs a major re-write up to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, but sorry to say WP:AfD is not a place for WP:CLEANUP. 2405:6E00:31C0:5000:5D2D:1843:9729:3F55 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2021 (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.