Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vach (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 speedy delete.

Deleted CSD G5 Creation by banned or blocked users. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Memohwiki Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Vach

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Non-notable online newspaper fails to demonstrate the notability per WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. Primary, unreliable and irrelevant sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Websites, and Canada. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it includes a number of secondary sources, only primary are YouTube and the relevent official website. Notability was mentioned with viewership Tommiyn12 (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few to no reliable, secondary sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Save Has a couple reliable secondary sources like The Verge, Vice, etc.. Suggest keeping it as a stub or putting minimal source notice Thephotography (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC) – Striking sockpuppet !vote. Nythar (💬-❄️) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Includes reliable, sufficient secondary non-trivial sources per WP:WEBCRIT Looked into the site, holder won a YouTube Creator Awards not sure if that's relevant. Poabsi (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC) – Striking sockpuppet !vote. Nythar (💬-❄️) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added to category of youth-led media where many sites are also stubs like this and do not use a lot of sources. Can be relevant in this context. Thephotography (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)) –– Striking entire sockpuppet !vote. Nythar (💬-❄️) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thephotography, Addition in youth led media wouldn't make it notable in anyway unless it passes the notability standard. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NWEB. Its sole claim to fame is that the magazine's "holding company" was allegedly behind a fake YouTube video, but media coverage of that incident doesn't even mention the company by name.-KH-1 (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep practically meets WP:NWEB contains multiple potential relevancy claims Tommiyn12 (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC) – Striking sockpuppet !vote. Nythar (💬-❄️) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:SNG due to category and stub nature. Includes sufficient potentially relevant, reliable secondary sources as perWP:RS Assevrob (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC) – Striking sockpuppet !vote. Nythar (💬-❄️) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Assevrob, Can you please explain which sources are reliable for this article? Most of the sources given in the article are irrelevant and the subject is not mentioned even once. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sense some socking going on or at least an off-wiki appeal to participate in this AFD. Actually, looking at the first AFD, I wonder if this article has once again been hijacked like it was before. It was once about a different subject entirely. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stub, for now. This article seems to be somewhat relevant? but should remain as a stub to be expanded ModernSocietyLmAo (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC) – Striking sockpuppet !vote. Nythar (💬-❄️) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Liz that there's clearly socking going on here that would probably make this G5-able but I'll make a substantial comment for the case that the sockpuppetry investigation takes a while. And that case is this: the sources in the article do not satisfy WP:GNG, nor WP:NWEB, nor WP:NCORP, and I cannot find sources online that do so. The sources in the article break down as follows:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
The Vach	This is the website's homepage.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
[voyagela.com/interview/inspiring-conversations-with-justin-jin-of-50mmidas/ Voyage LA Magazine]	This is an interview with Justin Jin, who founded The Vach, and it was published in a PR publication.	~ WP:ABOUTSELF.	Clear independence issues aside, The Vach is mentioned only in passing.	✘ No
"About us" from The Vach	This is The Vach's about us page	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
Social Blade	Why not	Social Blade seems fine	This is a database entry.	✘ No
IMDB	IMDB pro account; not independent of Jin.	WP:IMDB	The Vach is mentioned only in passing.	✘ No
"We faked YouTube's oldest video" from The Vach	This is an article published on The Vach	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
Motherboard/Vice on TikTok	Motherboard and Vice are independent of this (I think).	~ Vice is WP:MREL on WP:RSP, and this is a TikTok.	The Vach is not so much as mentioned by name once.	✘ No
The Independent	U.K. Quality Press WP:NEWSORG	U.K. Quality Press WP:NEWSORG	The Vach is not so much as mentioned once in the entire article.	✘ No
The Verge	Why not?	Why not?	The Vach is not so much as mentioned once in the entire article.	✘ No
The Times of India	Why not?	~ See WP:TOI.	The Vach is not so much as mentioned once in the entire article.	✘ No
The Vach on YouTube	This is the YouTube channel for The Vach	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Moot as clearly non-independent.	✘ No
Buzzfeed (archive link)	? The author is a Buzzfeed community contributor, so that could be anyone including an author with a COI.	Buzzfeed community contributors are self-published blogposts.	? Moot as clearly unreliable.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

As the above clearly shows, none of the sources currently in the article contribute towards satisfying GNG. As any article that fails GNG is also going to fail WP:WEBCRIT, and as I found no sources that contribute towards GNG even after I went and looked online for sources. As such, I have to conclude that this should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8 for failing to meet the relevant notability criteria. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Even if many of the references are non-independent, I can see that pieces are included like The Independent, The Verge, and the Times of India, and GNG only requires "multiple" pieces of coverage. The "Enn" channel mentioned in all of these also references The Vach's parent company, so some changes obviously need to be done. In addition, the page does not seem promotional, and rather objective. Info Rail (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC) – Striking sockpuppet !vote. Nythar (💬-❄️) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent, The Verge, and the Times of India articles don't even mention The Vach at all, so they by definition fail WP:GNG. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Info Rail, The Independent, The Verge, and the Times of India, are reliable and independent but do not have significance as editor mentioned in the table. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only actual significant coverage shown is from a community made Buzzfeed article, which fails RS requirements since it isn't by an actual journalist working for Buzzfeed News. Other than that, the other sources don't even mention the subject of this article, so fail at having significant coverage. Unless proper in-depth sourcing from reliable sources can be presented, this article completely fails to meet the WP:GNG. Silver seren^C 06:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on source analysis it doesn't meet GNG. Gusfriend (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Red-tailed hawk did an excellent source assessment table that clearly shows this article does not meet notability requirements. The keep votes above fail to show which references show notability. The clear socking is also a problem that the closing admin should look into if it hasn't been done already. // Timothy :: talk 10:09, 11 March 2023 (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.