Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badabun

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Badabun[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)

Subject does not appear to be notable outside of the controversy listed in the Controversy section of the article. letcreate123 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - one of thousands of controversial YouTube channels. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - They are one of the largest and (by the important metric of raw subscribers) most successful media channels on the internet; I don't think it's fair to suggest they are not notable simply because the article largely focuses on their controversies - nor do I think the fact something is controversial negates their actual notability. That said, the article as it stands is largely about a single set of controversies. I think there's a proper article to be had on this topic, it just needs to focus on the actual channel rather than a single incident. See WP:NPOSSIBLE. -Rushyo ^Talk 23:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subscriber counts mean absolutely nothing in terms of notability. Subscribers can be bought, can be a mix of bots/multiple accounts and there is no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 November 18.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep look at the sources on the Spanish version of the article. Obviously meets GNG. (t · c) buidhe 12:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've translate the page from the Spanish Wikipedia, It's in this draft. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 19:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete article does not meet GNG, subscriber counts don't make one 'notable' and the event that is described in the article seems to be a one-time/black swan type event. WP:GNG indicates that signficant coverage for more than one even is requiredd to fully meet GNG.Star7924 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Star7924: I'm not debating too much about this article, but I'm re-opening this AfD more for debate the Draft:Badabun, which obviously passes WP:GNG, with coverage of media like El País or Infobae. I'm NOT debating about the speedy deletion candidate mainspace article of Badabun, which losses on non notables facts like the fake Badabun speedrun and don't talk about the history of the company. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 20:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Repeat comment on YouTube-related content: I see more and more AfDs on YouTuber items. When I check the suggested searches on many of these articles, especially the News search, I get a large number of returns - several hundred in most cases. I am starting to get suspicious that this subject matter needs an evaluation as to what is reliable in the YouTube space - and I am certainly not qualified to make that call. In this case, the fact that many of the news links are in Spanish also doesn't help me. Having said that, it appears that this article is about a well-known, even notable, entity in that particular space. If we have someone with expertise in YouTube able to comment, that would be great.
Keep The original reasoning given by User:letcreate123 seems slightly weak to me, given the existence of quite a few sources that mention Badabun, enough that deletion makes less sense. In addition, many things that are not originally newsworthy become newsworthy because of controversy, and that's okay. Egroeg5 (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just look at the sourcing on the Spanish language article, obvious WP:GNG pass. Remember, this is not an english-language channel, sourcing will largely not be in English. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There is more than subscriber count going on here! jp×g 05:25, 12 December 2020 (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.