Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red State Update

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. Keep rationales have been considered and rejected as unsound and not based in policy.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red State Update[edit]

This was speedily deleted, taken to DRV and the opinions were one undelete, one keep deleted and one list at AfD.

The subject is a YouTube channel. A question was used in a YouTube presidential debate (so were lots of others). It has some minor attention. It has, however, no real sources outside the closed world of YouTube. Salon signed a deal to put it on one of its channels, but that is not the same thing as substantial independent sources. Where is the critical review in reliable sources? I fail to see how this is an encyclopaedia article rather than an entry in the YouTube channel directory-o-pedia. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable other than within its own environment or however you word it. Has no real notability claims --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only review that I've found so far is <http://www.betterproductsandservices.com/red-state-update-is-a-hoot-2007-05-11>. Red State Update seems to have captured the attention of CNN, which has now referenced it three times. I'm willing to try to fix any problems with this article. Are there any specific suggestions? If there are too many pointless references, I can get rid of them. Billebrooks 23:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Childzy. Can't see how this is notable in the least. Lychosis ^T/C 23:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some more changes that will hopefully make the article look more like an encyclopedia article. I hope that helps. Billebrooks 00:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if I'm allowed to vote for it as the page's creator. I created the page when I saw it on the list of pages requested for creation, then it got speedily deleted but was apparently un-deleted and put here. As mentioned above, they are notable in the circles they run in and have had (or are starting to have) their 15 minutes of fame, but they may not (yet) be notable enough for inclusion here. Rompe 08:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic--Kitrus 08:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's just a YouTube channel. Many entities are "notable in the circles," but that doesn't mean anyone else cares about them. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everything else I'm a fan of is here on wikipedia. I don't see why this should be an exception. Billebrooks 14:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or WP:ILIKEIT? Lychosis ^T/C 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person (or possibly one of the persons) who marked the article for speedy deletion. My spot check of search engine results at the time uncovered nothing significant not already listed here. That's not enough for an article per our notability guidelines. Erechtheus 23:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not nearly as inane as other Wikipedia entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.50.19 (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Lychosis ^T/C 00:18, 7 September 2007 (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.