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.
Fails WP:GNG. The result of the previous discussion was keep but most arguments boiled down to WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. I will address each of the sources cited both in the article and in that discussion:
Forbes: Published in the "contributors" (/sites) tab, thus unreliable per WP:FORBESCON.
The 961: Lebanese news website with unknown credibility or editorial oversight. The article itself is not thorough coverage of The Infographics Show but merely a piece criticizing it for the contents of one video.
Medium: Medium is a blog hosting service, a self-published source, unreliable per WP:MEDIUM.
Interesting Engineering: Appears to be a decently reliable source, but again, it covers only one video and is mostly trivial.
HiFi Public: Another obscure and sketchy website with no evidence of editorial oversight. Only trivially mentions the channel in a list of other YouTube channels.
Time Out: It's an actual magazine and thus reliable, but again, only mentions The Infographics Show rather briefly in an entire list.
Insider: Once again, a very brief and trivial mention.
Daily Collegian: Ditto. Mentions (or rather, simply name-drops) The Infographics Show literally once. As a student newspaper, it's marginally reliable.
Naibuzz: Another egregiously poor source, which is basically a CelebrityNetWorth page (which is an unreliable source) written in article format.
El Español: A legitimate newspaper, but again, makes a very short and trivial mention of The Infographics Show.
We Are The Mighty: Yet another obscure website. The article itself is a glorified summary of a video.
Alt News: An apparently legit fact-checking website, but only mentions The Infographics Show at the very end, linking to one of their videos.
It appears editors who voted "keep" in the previous discussion simply put "The Infographics Show" on Google and copy and pasted random links, which is textbook LOTSOFSOURCES and a sloppy way to argue for keeping an article. If these trivial, obscure and sketchy sources is all they could find, one would be hard pressed to find anything better. There seems to be nothing notable about The Infographics Show. DannyC55 (Talk) 23:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would like to see interested editors weighing in here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would agree that as far as notability goes, it's not the strongest article subject one could find. However I would argue that the notability is there. I do agree with a lot of DannyC55's analysis above, but not all of it. The InterestingEngineering site, for example, is not a trivial mention as defined by Wikipedia consensus, and falls squarely into significant coverage. As for sources like wearethemighty.com, believing that a source is obscure does not discount that source from being a reliable source. Time Out mentioning the channel briefly does not discount it as contributing to notability. Per WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The Time Out source meets that criteria. When also taking into consideration some of the sources in the first AfD such as this one, I think it does create enough notability to meet WP:GNG, but just barely. - Aoidh (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that my assessment of Interesting Engineering and Time Out wasn't ideal; they do count as reliable sources and make non-trivial coverage, so I retract that part of my nomination. DannyC55 (Talk) 01:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we need to have a discussion on notability and YouTube channels. The Infographics Show has over 11 million followers, that has to count for something. If this was any other media platform this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 10:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the sources, listed above, some of the articles are on a single video, not on the YouTube channel. I don't believe that there is enough on the channel itself to warrant a page. SWinxy (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete mostly per nom. Article is borderline, and for such a popular channel, I was surprised by the niche coverage. Interesting Engineering might be one for GNG, and it has an about us page on editors, with the editor in chief having a magazine. The article is... okay at best. I don't agree with Time Out counting to GNG. Per AfC, it says, References about the subject — at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. This has three sentences and one in brackets, and is too short to me, so maybe counts as half? Others, including Alt News, Insider, Gizmodo, and so on, are RS, but only have one sentence, so is trivial. Trecebits is also probably too short to count to GNG. I agree that other refs (Forbes contributors and other niche websites) are not reliable, so I am leaning weak delete. I don't think the YouTuber channel subs count mean much, sure, 11 million is an achievement, but the Notability (company) says that Views, hits, likes, shares have no bearing as establishing whether the coverage is significant. Many thanks, ping me if more refs are found (I couldn't find much else). VickKiang (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2022 (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.