Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SML (YouTube channel)

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. To avoid WP:CSD#G4, any recreation down the track would need some very effective sourcing. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SML (YouTube channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Essentially a recreation via AFC with a different title, this article was previously deleted and salted in 2020 under the title SuperMarioLogan. Since then, the sources haven't improved substantially; there are a few articles about the creator winning an auction, and beyond that, we have passing mention of the series in this article from GoodMorningAmerica and two other articles; (a review in Common Sense Media passing mention in TeessideLive, a regional British news site). None of the other sources meet WP:RS guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Shaws username . talk . 17:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete :I think SML is notable enough, it does rely on primary sources by SML is popular on YouTube and has 6 million subscribers and millions of views. The channel may not be as big as MrBeast but is well known and Wikipedia covers quite a bit of YouTube articles like Skibidi Toilet. I think we should keep the article. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subscriber count does not matter, nor do primary sources. Independent, reliable sources are used to determine notability. I'll link the notability requirements and what counts as a reliable source. Also, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence of other articles is irrelevant in a deletion discussion. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet had articles in the Washington Post and NY Times, this person is far from that. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, I do think it needs some more sources to now reconsidering it, maybe it can be moved back to draft or in a sandbox page and if I cant find anymore sources it will be deleted. Besides the Tom Brady thing and Good Morning America and the Jeffy Controversy their isnt many sources but I will continue looking PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a few more sources and one article by ABC News [1] it does mention what good Morning America said, but it is a good source and it is a start. It is a passing mention but it is better than nothing. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Passing mention" coverage does not address the WP:DEPTH requirement of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your right. their is at least a few sources on SML I could find on Tom Brady at least that cover Logan, those are the best sources I could find. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not enough coverage in RS about this Youtube channel. This is about all I could find [2], not the best source... Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination. Best case scenario would be a WP:TNT, as it's largely sourced to YouTube videos rather than reliable, third party sources. Reads more like a fan wiki article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I could rewrite the article, I feel this article does have potential. It has a few good sources like ABC News and Good Morning America. It has alot of primary sources but this article can be rewritten. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're welcome to WP:DRAFT something up and post it here to see if it persuades people. But it's probably better to persuade people it even meets the WP:GNG in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 21:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It would be fine to work on a WP:TNT version in the draft space and then bring it to WP:AFC later. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A Suggestion Instead of deleting it can the page be moved to a sandbox page in my namespace, or back to a draft. I agree with all of the users here that the page is not ready for mainspace. I still do feel SML can have coverage on Wikipedia, they may not have a whole lot of sources but the channel is a big channel and a recognizable part of YouTube history, I understand that doesnt mean the channel is notable, but it isnt like a small channel with 10 subs with no one talking about it, this channel is talked about alot on the internet, the channel gets alot of views and has some sources, like the Tom Brady auction and common sense media and good morning america as well as some of the controversy of Jeffy. Alot of the sources are YouTube videos which arnt the best and I agree with that. I think that WP:TNT is the best option, I can edit the page and put something together, hopefully find a few more good sources. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been given a week to provide additional sourcing to support the notability of this topic. If you're unable to do that within a week, there's no reason to re-draftiy this given that it's been previously AfD'd and salted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah your right, I just cant find many sources and I don't know what to do really. I have never really been involved in a deletion discussion. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think the best thing to do for the article right now is just to let it be, maybe I might create a draft again in a few years if sources improve. I do agree with everyone not enough sources. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2024 (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.