Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BreadTube

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. Clear consensus that this group passes GNG. Article can be improved outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BreadTube

[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)

A wikipedia page about a subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/) that has very little notable coverage. James Richards (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't seem to be about the subreddit, but about a (loosely-defined) community of leftist YouTubers — ContraPoints, Hbomberguy, Lindsay Ellis, Philosophy Tube and company. The community has a subreddit, because (for whatever damn reason) that's how online communities operate these days. The original sources weren't great, but better documentation was available; I have included some more reliable sources and tried to clean up the prose a bit. (A Google Scholar search finds additional potential sources, but they might fall into a preprint/thesis gray area and would need to be evaluated more carefully for reliability; e.g., [1][2][3][4].) XOR'easter (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think there is strictly a notability problem here, per XOR'easter - just as the YouTube creators mentioned are notable, so too does the community itself have coverage in external sources. It needs a rewrite, though - I would note that the article as it is seems to be mostly rehashing content from other articles on left-wing YouTube creators, the community is often rather vaguely defined, and the article should be focused around the community itself rather than its constituent creators. However, its quality does not make it a suitable for deletion (see WP:RUBBISH). Sparkledriver (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR'easter & Sparkledriver. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If kept, it could use some statement of its active dates and its audience size in the top paragraph. --Lockley (talk) 22:50, 9 July 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.