Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinkernut

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tinkernut

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

Non-notable. Deleted multiple times via A7. delete and salt UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another blogger? I don't see notability and the article reads like a homespun resume rather than a Wiki article. Needs lots of cleanup, both in references and content, to change to a keeper. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete I see nothing to suggest that this particular blogger is that notable. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not seeing reliable sources with significant coverage. I can't even tell if it's supposed to be about the person or the website or the video series. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question are viral videos notable? How many views does it take for a video to qualify as viral (or notable)? This particular person has at least one video with over 2 million views plus some awards. The reason I didn't delete this article outright a month or two ago was the significant number of views. That and I'm not sure the coverage isn't significant. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A viral video is only notable if reliable sources cover it, a certain number of views is a measure of popularity, but not necessarily notability. Obviously what amounts to significant coverage is subject to interpretation. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article lists coverage, is that not significant? Rklawton (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least as I see it, almost all of the links from the article are either not independent sources (being the youtube site or the blog) or just links to the videos (unless I'm missing something), they don't actually talk about the blog/person/videos (as I said above, I can't tell which the article is supposed to be focusing on, but none of them really talk about any of them). The artician.com source has some actual coverage, but it's short and shallow, not what I would call significant coverage. If I am overlooking more coverage, please let me know. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why do you have to delete it? Can't we work together and try to improve the article and make it look and sound like a real Encyclopedia article. The article is a bit misunderstandable, but what exactly is it that is understood about it? Is it the misinterpretation of the Website and Blog? If it is I'll try and fix it up.Zaz986 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2010 (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.