Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology Connections (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. ✗plicit 11:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Connections

AfDs for this article:

[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)

I still believe this fails SIGCOV and notability for the same reasons discussed in the last AfD discussion two months ago. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough independent sources with significant coverage to meet the bar for WP:GNG. If that would not be the case, Alec Watson meets WP:NAUTHOR anyway. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you consider to meet the bar for each of those paths? Sdkb ^talk 14:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the comment of DigitalIceAge. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is getting tedious. We have significant coverage about the channel itself in multiple reliable sources: The Physics Teacher source is expressely about his channel, the Lifehacker source dedicates over 100 words about his channel, Jancovic 2023 is a published book that spends an entire page praising Watson's deducition skills. Almost all of the rest of the sources contain enough editoralizing about his channel to constitute sigcov of Technology Connections. Per WP:WEBCRIT it passes the bar. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough good sources with enough sigcov to keep the article. This YouTuber has clearly made an inpact in the reliable sources to be notable enough for a page on enwiki. Melmann 08:50, 14 September 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.