Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TierZoo

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TierZoo[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)

Youtuber with trivial coverage. Not notable enough. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article clearly passes WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources,, with significant coverage in this article:[1] by Kotaku which is solely about the subject, combined with further significant coverage in a lengthy paragraph here:[2] and another paragraph here: [3], albeit the last one is in Spanish. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Devonian Wombat apart from the Kotaku article, others are simply single para mentions in blog style lists from sources that are not reliable in this regard. The bar for GNG is not this low. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- A paragraph of coverage is clearly significant coverage, trivial coverage would be things like a couple of sentences, and indeed, the other sources within the article are examples of what trivial coverage actually is. A paragraph is also especially significant coverage when the paragraph is as lengthy as the one cited in the second source. This an article on YouTube, not medicine or some other topic when sources might especially be disregarded as unreliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant in-depth coverage in multiple sources. A listicle in a college newspaper is not sufficient. Reywas92^Talk 03:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage relies on blogs and other unreliable sources; a BLP needs the highest level of sourcing, which this lacks. Fails BASIC. ——Serial^# 13:48, 26 May 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.