RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Kraut and Tea
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Kraut and Tea | Result: Deleted[edit]
Delete[edit]
- This nobody is no longer on YT, article is stubby and bleh. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Was just another youtuber, is just another ex-youtuber. WilderBicycle 09:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Who cares? --Ozamataz Buckshank (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- So, after 15 days, it's 3 votes for delete and 1 vote for keep with a lot of discussion but nobody having a change of mind. It goes. Spud (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep[edit]
- His content is still there and this person has a decent amount of subscribers. Just because he doesn't make new content doesn't mean we should delete an article about him. There are also plentiful resources critiquing his content in the talk page, so the potential for some expansion is there. Being a minor Youtuber hasn't stopped us from articles like Black Pigeon Speaks or Emil O. W. Kirkegaard. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 19:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- While I’m not sure we should have articles on them either, at least their articles contain some critical responses to these YouTubers, not to mention that they are still active. By contrast, the Kraut and Tea article is stubby and its contents are not very informative, containing mainly “Boo! We don’t like you!”-type rhetoric, brief quotes and little commentary/debunking. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- While I know notability isn't a requirement, I don't think we shall make an article on every random YouTube wanker and tosspot and keep only those who make a splash. I believe he falls under the random wanker and/or tosspot. Ozamataz Buckshank (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think it has been mentioned before, but we should really make a criterion on which Youtuber to cover or not. I suppose a minimum subscriber amount? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Heh, sounds like you’re channeling Fuzzy, @LeftyGreenMario. Joking aside, you do have a point. Do you have any ideas/suggestions? My only concern would be whether such formal criteria would lead to excessive wikilawyering
from either the cranks, their fans or edit warriors trying to get stuff removed. Nevertheless, I do think that at the very least some guidelines on when we care about bloggers, YouTubers and the like would be nice. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Heh, sounds like you’re channeling Fuzzy, @LeftyGreenMario. Joking aside, you do have a point. Do you have any ideas/suggestions? My only concern would be whether such formal criteria would lead to excessive wikilawyering
- I think it has been mentioned before, but we should really make a criterion on which Youtuber to cover or not. I suppose a minimum subscriber amount? --It's-a me,
- While I know notability isn't a requirement, I don't think we shall make an article on every random YouTube wanker and tosspot and keep only those who make a splash. I believe he falls under the random wanker and/or tosspot. Ozamataz Buckshank (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- While I’m not sure we should have articles on them either, at least their articles contain some critical responses to these YouTubers, not to mention that they are still active. By contrast, the Kraut and Tea article is stubby and its contents are not very informative, containing mainly “Boo! We don’t like you!”-type rhetoric, brief quotes and little commentary/debunking. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Merge/redirect[edit]
Goat[edit]
Someone deleting all their stuff doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't have an article, does it? —Kazitor, pending 01:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, you’re right about that, but that’s not the main reason I suggested nuking the article. Those were the combination of its poor content and the “nobody factor”, while the deletion of the channel was of secondary concern. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)