Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MinutePhysics

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MinutePhysics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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

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

Most of the sources that were coted are trovia. Looking at WP:BEFORE, there's nothing more reliable source to be found,thus failing GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a firm keep for me. Sourcing present needs some work but clears GNG already. The NBC News source in particular supports notability being established. A very crude Google News search shows plenty of sourcing available that I'll have to go ahead and work into this article. 1 2 are ones found trough that crude search. Also found this criticism of MinuteEarth by the NCSE. This source from the Heising-Simons Foundation should also help support notability. Also 1, [2, 3 are suitable to incorporate into the article. Soulbust (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Likely SNOW coming on this one. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Clicking the "Find sources" links in the nomination template gives us more than enough:
1. Multiple reviews in The Physics Teacher, a peer reviewed journal of American Association of Physics Teachers [1][2][3]
2. Space.com article[4]
3. Professional writer, published on Nerdist[5]
4. Wired [6]
5. Wisconsin State Journal article about the creator (note this is not an interview, it's coverage of a talk containing quotes). [7]
6. The Mary Sue article [8]
7. Coverage on Slate, with disclosure of prior relationships with contributors to videos[9]

—siro χ o 05:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. DrowssapSMM (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with siroχo that there are more than enough sources to warrant an article. XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable enough with a plethora of reliable sources significantly covering the channel. Looks like winter's coming soon on this AfD. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might even be argued that MinutePhysics and MinuteEarth are separately notable, although I see no need to split the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keepas per all said MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 06:37, 2 September 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.