Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Walten Files

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. Daniel (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Walten Files[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)

Fails WP:GNG, as all sources aren't sufficient to prove notability or are the media described in the article itself. Page is written in a self-promo style and a quick search for reliable sources doesn't turn up enough to justify an entire article. Paragon Deku (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Doesn't look like there's a lot of info about the series. 🎧⋆JennilyW♡🎶 (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is quite a lot of info, although the series is still small. Whether Martin makes more or not is yet to be seen. Still quite a long series as it is.

Comment even if there's a lot of info, it still needs WPRS. All the sources on the article are just from Youtube and not from news outlets. Shows from the web are barely reliable, so they need to have WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, and WP:NOTE. Since this article has none, it's going to get deleted unless reliable sources are found. 🎧⋆JennilyW♡🎶 (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The series has recently gained popularity, which may mean that some reliable sources may the topic.

Until the time comes when reliable sources report on it, the subject is not notable and should not have its own page. Paragon Deku (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment claiming notability based on the contents of the article is addressed at WP:ARTN and claiming an article could be notable in the future is addressed at WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only sources being used in the article are YouTube videos, almost all of which are primary. I can find no actual significant coverage in reliable sources discussing or reviewing the series at all. The arguments above that it might become notable and have sources in the future are completely irrelevant to the notability of the topic per WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Rorshacma (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I admittedly hate for articles to get deleted, but looking at the sources, not a single one meets GNG standards. The only other source I could find is this Distractify article about the creator which only briefly mentions the series. Definitely doesn't meet any of the criteria for notability, sadly. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough sources Sahaib (talk) 20:23, 3 August 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.