Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThatWasEpic

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ThatWasEpic

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

WP:TOOSOON. An unremarkable YouTube channel / personality; significant coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail not found, mostly tabloid-like coverage of the pranks. Not encyclopedically relevant at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant and in-depth coverage needed to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find additional English language sources (though searching for "Juan Gonzalez" is a pain - too common - needed filtering to youtube / video/ pranks/ etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep Perfectly notable, you can find articles and videos including an interview. Essay "TOOSOON"?! then when it's not too soon I may not be alive or have internet access again to write a new article for my favorite youtubers, I helped spread the word, laughter helps depression and stuff, btw quality in chosen over quantity and fyi I don't get paid. Your perspective is different than mine, I see the content and how they're important for the people who need and you see how much money he makes or he doesn't have enough subscribers. Mjbmr (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with Mjbmr. This article subject has significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. A simple google search would suffice to show any non-biased person that this article subject passes WP:GNG, and therefore the article should be retained in the encyclopedia. Antonioatrylia (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient in-depth independent coverage in RS. MB 04:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not that there aren't plenty of sources out there. The problem is finding in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have spent quite a while searching the internet and a number of news databases and I cannot find anything which really counts as significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Therefore, as it stands I don't believe this article satisfies the general notability guideline. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2017 (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.