RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Three Arrows

Three Arrows | Result: Deleted

Three Arrows (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. It's a YouTube stub that's pretty much going nowhere, It's pretty much a puff piece and should've been a part of the great YouTube purge. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 17:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Another YouTube article about a channel no one cares about. GeeJayK (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

   it's a good channel and I care about it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

3. Boring filler.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 17:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

   it's a good channel. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

4. I'm surprised that this one evaded the Great YouTube Purge. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 18:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
5. I think it survived for being undiscovered. Andrew5 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
6. Youtube. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep for the time being, the channel is inactive but it covers debunking pseudo-history. As for no one caring, I suppose if you didn't use YouTube or Twitter that would be true, but meh, a resource is a resource. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
2. Short article doesn't mean delete. This guy is like Shaun; the YouTuber is a good resource, and he has a healthy amount of subscribers and views despite being an inactive channel. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

   Honestly, I'm not sure that needs an article, but I won't go through the trouble of AFD'ing it.Andrew5 (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Goat

• Normally talk pages aren't deleted, but since this just says {{person}}, would it possibly be deleted if the article is? Andrew5 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  No. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Y'all are just taking a cursory glance and deciding delete because it's a small article and only because it's YouTube. The content the YouTuber makes can make for a really good resource for our articles. Just look at his uploads. For instance, his video "Fox News: How To Whitewash an Atrocity" can be used as a starting material for Blackwater which I've actually used the links from that video to supplement the Blackwater article. It's not "boring", it's actually quite engaging, and the video itself has a plethora of resources to share. Why the hell would you want to saw off potential material for the wiki just because it's on a medium you don't like? The article is small (and why call it a "puffpiece", like, should we make up criticism for this guy if we can't find serious criticism?), so what? Just leave it if you can't find time to expand it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)