Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhett and Link

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 Keep: There are enough 3rd party reliable sources to prove notability. --wL<speak·check> 21:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhett and Link[edit]

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

At first glance, this article seems to be well sourced. However:

    1. 1, #2, #9, #11, #19, #30, #31 and #40 are primary sources.
    2. 4, #25 and #27, #38, #39 are all YouTube links from their channel.
    3. 6 and #8 don't even dedicate a full sentence.
    4. 3, #7, #12, #13, #15, #21, #33 are dead links.
    5. 10 is a press release with only a one-sentence mention.
    6. 14, #17, #22, #23, #29, #32, #34, #35, #36 make no mention of the subject.
    7. 16 redirects to a Facebook page.
    8. 18 is a trivial mention.
    9. 20 makes only a tangential mention in relation to another, non-notable YouTuber.
    10. 24 is a one-sentence mention.
    11. 26 makes mention of an "untitled Rhett & Link" project.
    12. 28 is incidental coverage for one of their shows.
    13. 37 is decent.

The article is overall very spammy with many third-party links inserted in the text. While the article overall says a lot, it doesn't suggest that they meet WP:WEB; they've won several awards, but they are all very non-notable one-offs like "Contest of Awesome", "Time's Top 10 List of Everything", "TurboTax TaxRap Contest" and "Adweek's Buzz Awards". Not a single one of their award wins meets any criterion of WP:N. As I pointed out, the sourcing is abysmal and mostly self-referential, or incidental one-off coverage that doesn't meet the "non-trivial" criterion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then maybe this article needs to be changed and not deleted.Ubuntu061896 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I knew I recognized these guys from an NPR story, here it is : [1]. I'm sure a lot of the current links in the article are crap, as is typical of youtuber articles whether notable or not. Otherwise, I know I've seen coverage of them in ad-industry pubs, e.g., [2].--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the article may be poorly referenced and poorly written in places, there is no doubt that the article should be edited rather than deleted. Rhett and Link are established entertainment personalities with significant media coverage. This is really a matter of cleaning up the article, increasing its integrity rather than deleting it. Furthermore, TenPoundHammer's assessment that the awards are non-notable seems to be extremely subjective. --BenRoss48 10:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Definitely keep. Rhett & Link are iconic YouTube "celebrities". They need a Wiki page as much as any other celebrity out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.65.135 (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Obviously keep, Rhett and Link are celebrities, musicians, filmmakers, and overall talented guys. And with their upcoming TV show, it's painfully obvious whomever nominated this for deletion doesn't recognize/understand new media. If people like Mystery Guitar Man and Ray William Johnson have wiki entries, then Rhett and Link are a billion times more deserving. Heck, everyone's more deserving of a wiki article compared to Snooki. Any links within the article that don't meet required standards can easily be fixed. It just needs some care from a talented wiki editor. (No, not me.) ... anyway, that's my two-cents. LN3000 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree that some significant editing may be necessary, but I don't feel that the reasons given are cause for deletion. Even if the article isn't the best, it is still providing information that people could very well be looking for, as they are YouTube celebrities, no matter how much stock you put in such a thing --crazipaperclip 06:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC
  • Keep: Definitely Keep Rhett and Link deserve a Wiki page. They are the kings of YouTube and have incredible amounts of media attention, this article simply needs editing not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncorfee (talk • contribs) 06:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources may not be fireproof, but that doesn't mean that Rhett&Link don't deserve a wiki page. They have a large fanbase and are pretty well-known in the internet video community, like Freddie Wong and GoRemy. Keep this article, and let fans do some work on the references (drop the 404's if they can't be found). --Daniel Danopia (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The quality of this article is probably in direct correlation to the age of their fan base. The article is in obvious need attention and maintenance. Cleaning out anything that does not lead to a primary source seems a more reasonable action than straight deletion. We can probably improve the article with links that the younger fan base might not even know of like the appearance on CNN, the Jay Lenno clip, the Last Call with Carson Daly segment, et al. Brianlayman (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is definitely an article on the keep list. Firstly, these individuals are definitely international notable web, specifically YouTube, entertainment figures. With the recent announcement on IFC (The Independent Film Channel LLC) of an upcoming TV production revolving around their film creation. Their fame and notability will continue to grow and this wikipedia article supports their history. Regarding this article content, sources, and a few of the statement, I can understand and warrant that changes need to be made, all of which can be done. But all that said, there is absolutely no reason a deletion or even this discussion should occur. I hope to see a speedy keep and in the near future some minor link/source fixes. Nicholas McQuillin 07:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickam (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: Not that my vote means anything, but I did some clean up on this article after seeing it was tagged. It had just too much self-promotion and it was poorly organized. There were several notable sources missing as well. I think it addresses a few of the concerns you all have raised.66.151.52.100 (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Some of the references seem a bit dubious, but there is enough out there to justify a Wikipedia presence, based on notability. The article will evolve and benefit from regular in-house editing. Evalpor (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In house editing from whom? The same fanboys who are splooging all over the page with unreliable sources and fancruft? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 14:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • --TenPoundHammer, that is incredibly unfair and just gross. I added in profiles about the two from Wired, AdAge and Time. Their appearances as featured guests on THREE major late night talk shows, including The Tonight Show. I found solid coverage in several media publications and websites that cover the space from Deadline.com to TubeFilter. AND I got rid of most of if not all of the stuff that was borderline self-promotional as well as the bad links you mentioned in your post. The videos have been seen 90 million times and they have nearly 1M million subscribers. 66.151.52.100 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Really? This page is up for deletion? There are thousands of other pages that I can think of on Wikipedia that should get the ax before this one. The arguments against the sources border on petty at times, and all the information is reliable, whether or not you deem it "worthy." Rhett and Link are also still currently out in the world furthering their careers which daily bolsters the arsenal of credible information that can be added to this page. Definitely keep. --- Ulquiorra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.134.76 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Most Youtubers (unless they reach fame through viral videos) are rarely mentioned, so sources are going to be hard to come by. I really don't see any need to delete it - perhaps add some more reliable sources. I think nominating this article for deletion is just being pedantic based on the points made. Also, just because you are incapable of finding reliable sources, doesn't mean people who are more knowledgeable on the duo can't. Obvious keep. Doomphil (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2011 (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/Rhett_and_Link&oldid=1138298874"