Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brentalfloss (2nd nomination)

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. KTC (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brentalfloss

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

A few media hits, the most notable one of them consisting of a mention in the NYT, are cobbled together to suggest notability for another YouTuber who has no encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I looked at the first AFD, and I am still not convinced. It's possible that the one link to an article in the Times-News actually discusses the guy, but even if that's the case it's one article in a relatively minor newspaper (encyclopedias should aim a little higher for their sourcing). This was brought up with the suggestion that it might possibly be a reliable source (no evidence given), which strikes me as naive and poorly thought-out, considering that this is the website's home page. Finally, that NYT article--it says he co-wrote a musical and graduated from a school, that's all. We need in-depth coverage to prove notability. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 04:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sources already in the article, such as this one, that discuss the subject in detail. The subject isn't the subject of the The New York Times and Tulsa World articles, but it meets the "significant coverage" part of WP:GNG, as no original research is needed to extract the content, and the subject has more than a trivial mention. There's also this, which by itself doesn't show much, but I think that all of these together do show notability for the subject. Granted, it's not the strongest case for notability, but I do think it meets WP:GNG, given that there are multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject that have significant coverage of the subject. - Sudo Ghost 14:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – That the most detail is in the Times-News, a "minor" newspaper doesn't bother me too much; there's no particular reason to doubt the reliability etc. I'd agree with SudoGhost's assessment of the sources here; it's not the clearest case for notability but probably notability enough for WP:GNG. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Roughly via SudoGhost, Paul Erik. With regard to Paul Erik's point about borderline notability, while this isn't something we'd take as "reliable" when talking about verification, I find the existence of coverage of this fellow over three writers and four years at Kotaku Australia to at least smell like notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:59, 5 April 2013 (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.