Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterflame (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I'm not seeing sufficient sourcing to back up the keep comment, but if this is a TOOSOON situation and new (reliable) sourcing pops up, hit me up for an undelete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waterflame[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Waterflame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable artist, has only 200K subs on YT and is only famous for making GD music, and some complete paragraphs have no sources 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 19:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream (YouTuber) (2nd nomination). –Cupper52Discuss! 19:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources, The Guardian source seems to be self-published, other sources are non-notable blogs. Searching did not provide any better sources. Fails WP:BAND. FozzieHey (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete Comment I mean. Geometry Dash is notable and they did write songs for it, but notability is not inherited, so I guess that's not good reasoning. I definitely enjoy his music, but that's an WP:ILIKEIT reasoning, so that isn't allowed either. I really want to !vote Keep here but there just isn't any valid reason to. casualdejekyll (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe WP:BAND criteria 7 is met here? I don't know. I'm just dredging up stuff to support one of my favorite artists here. I shouldn't be !voting here, I'm gonna strike and replace with Comment. 22:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep subscriber count isn't relevant for notability. Most content in the article is sourced, and that which is not can be removed, but that is no reason to delete an article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't see how this passses WP:GNG, no sources seem to be reliable and are just from random blogs or music companies that are linked to the subject. FozzieHey (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, WP:ENT point #2 could be taken as including subscriber count... but the 374k that his channel is sitting at right now is not nearly the amount of articles on YTers that have survived AFDs. casualdejekyll (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've made articles on YouTubers that would definitely survive AfD with significantly fewer subscribers. The subscriber count is not relevant. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I enjoy his music, but there are rules on WP. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 18:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after an extensive search, the only thing I found that might count towards GNG is the article in Natt & Dag, which might be a reliable source (it has an editorial team, so it's not a blog) but it alone is not enough to pass GNG. Everything else I could find was either unreliable, in passing or a primary source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it does get us halfway there (my interpretation of GNG are two in-depth sources). It's one. But yes, if there is nothing else, this does fall on the wrong side of the notability policies. Too soon. Weak delete for now, pin me if more sources are found. Ps. We have several WP:INTERVIEWs but those are hardly quality sours. Linked ru wiki article has +3 refs but nothing jumps out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:48, 4 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waterflame_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1005510974"