Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Tasker (YouTuber)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Tasker (YouTuber)

[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)

No SIGCOV or RS presented in this article about a YouTuber and children's TV presenter, none found in a WP:BEFORE. There is simply not enough to get beyond WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Websites, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage here [1] and [2]. I think it's at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I initially draftified this article because it was not properly written. But, on cusory search I found some sources that could be used, some of which Oaktree mentioned above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All we scare up are a trivial news item about Tasker coming out as gay, which fair play to the lad, but were it not for that, there would be no new item. Plus, a routine report, in its enthusiasm verging on advertorializing, about a CBBC show having Tasker as host. Where is the "significant", "third-party," "independent" coverage? Graciously, another case of a premature rush to thet stage. And the fact that the article has been curated mostly by a mostly monomaniac account does not help its case. -The Gnome (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 8 October 2023 (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.