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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RackaRacka[edit]

RackaRacka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed CSD A7.

Non notable web property. Fiddle Faddle 19:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 I can't spot a credible claim of significance. Adam9007 (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To start off with, speedy deletion is entirely inappropriate because the article contains two solid claims of significance: (1) that the YouTube channel has a very high number of subscribers, and (2) the article cites multiple reliable sources entirely about the topic. Keep due to reliable sources about the topic. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if a high number of subscribers is in and of itself significant (for example, many people could subscribe to my channel because they like my content, but that doesn't mean I'm in any way significant or notable), and citations are not claims of significance. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it's significant. Adam9007 (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable sources about the subject are claims of significance because of the implicit claim that the subject was notable enough to be written about, which incidentally is the essence of the notability guideline. And, if 2 million people subscribed to your YouTube channel, there would be a good chance you were notable. Antrocent (♫♬) 23:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, as info has been added, A7 obviously no longer applies. Adam9007 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Antrocent makes the argument that a large number of Youtube subscribers makes the person notable. Indeed, it might. But the person is not the Youtube channel and the Youtube channel is not the person. The channel is, broadly, the business of the person. The two are linked, but are not indivisible, and notability needs to be verified for the topic of the article. The person does not inherit notability from the channel and the channel does not inherit it from the person.
• Weak delete, but not per A7: This article makes a plausible claim of significance; 1.8m YouTube subscribers + "known for". If the article cites even sub-reliable sources covering the subject, precedent is towards declining an A7 in such circumstances (the criterion was created for articles without a compelling reason to believe there are existing sources covering the topic). Nonetheless, searches only came up with tabloid, but not reliable coverage. Esquivalience ^t 00:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I should add that the extra info was added after the A7 and AfD nominations. Adam9007 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As deletion discussions evolve the articles being discussed often evolve as well. Fiddle Faddle 06:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete David Condrey ^{log talk} 23:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The brothers and their films have enough coverage for GNG. Move and rewrite to be about them instead as the channel itself has not been the focus of the coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and suggest a move to Danny and Michael Philippou - I agree with Duffbeerforme. There's significant coverage of the brothers, e.g., [1], [2], [3]. Enough to meet WP:GNG. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2015 (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.