Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack D Films

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zack D Films

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Zack D Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable YouTuber. No reliable sources present, and all sources online are about one of his videos, not him in general, so no significant coverage. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Tagged under WP:G11 as a promotional page. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Declined; I don't see anything at all promotional here. If there's a speedy deletion criterion this comes close on, it's WP:A7, but having 17 million subscribers is probably a WP:CCS. None of which is to say he's notable, just that the article has earned its week at AfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't appear to be promotional but sourcing is clearly not good enough to meet WP:GNG. My guess is that this was created by some kid rather than a PR team. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources to back up notability conpared to any other YouTuber. Urchincrawler (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly sourced and written almost like an ad. Fails GNG with no reliable sources on a search. Madeleine961 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Searching found some tabloid coverage of his videos. I don't think it's reliable enough to count for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails GNG, I don't think the article was intended to be promotional, but it was likely written by a (young) fan DarmaniLink (talk) 00:00, 2 December 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.