Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smosh (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 Withdrawing by nom my main concern was that the request for reliable verifiable sources claiming notability were not met in the article after 2 years and at least one repeated recent request---and there was a ton of 'noise' surrounding google searches for Smosh. NurseryRhyme provided enough independent reliable sources, that were not referencing the same event even, to prove notability. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Somehow this page survived deletion 2 years ago when it was previously nominated. The article is about a non-notable group of 2 that have released 63 youtube videos. The article makes a minor assertion of notability, that they are "currently the third most subscribed of all of YouTube." When this was added who knows, it could be 2 years old, thus the "currently" is not helpful. It is also not referenced. Currently there is only one independent sources--everything else that currently exists is their own youtube videos or myspace. The one reference, in entirety, "Anthony Padilla and Ian Hecox, also known as Smosh, won for best comedy video." This does not represent, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Winning a single non-notable award, does not convey notability, especially when the award is deemed as advertising gimmick for Youtube. Smosh fails to meet satisfy the criteria at WP:CREATIVE and is questionable about WP:entertainer---but without resources, this cannot be confirmed. I was going to leave a note on Smosh's talk page asking for sources/proof that this article deserved to be kept, but two weeks ago somebody else raised the Spectre of deletion. The claims to notability are weak and without reliable independent sources, this article should be deleted. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, well-known video artists who have had multiple notable references. See [1] (which says "Smosh is YouTube's most subscribed-to channel", surely proof of notability), [2], [3], [4], [5], and more. YouTube pays Smosh for their content. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's enough for me... those links should be included in the article. Withdrawing Nom---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:29, 25 December 2008 (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.