Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hickok45

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 Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hickok45[edit]

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

Comment - The article is nothing more than an ad for the YouTube channel that is profiting WP:PROMOTION because the article does not have notability WP:N.Wikiinfomation (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions of bad faith against other Wikipedians won't serve you well here. As I said on the article talk page, you're not off to a very good start in your two short months on Wikipedia. And as I mentioned on your talk page (which you blanked), you need to spend more time editing here and becoming familiar with policies, guidelines and the culture. Based on your comment above, you admit you have filed this based on an assumption of bad faith. Then you repeat the claim of lack of notability, yet the multiple reliable sources in the article contradict you. Simply put, you don't have any idea what you're doing here and it's becoming disruptive. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above by User:The Master was removed, with no edit summary, by User:Wikiinfomation in this edit 11:00, 26 January 2017. Note that Wikiinfomation simultaneously rewrote their Comment - Some of the creators of the page obviously had a profit driven agenda and may or may not have been biased towards the subject WP:NPOV but the subject is not notable Wikipedia:Notability enough to have its own article. as Delete - The article is nothing more than a ad for the YouTube channel that is making profiting WP:PROMOTION because the article does not have notability WP:N. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Corrected my own misspelling of Wikiinfomation. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and as stated above I am new and learning the process but looking at it from my perspective I have someone saying it's wrong, then I fix it, then it's disruptive that I fixed it?...Reading rules...be kind to new editors this link. WP:KIND...Wikiinfomation (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder; I shall endeavour to be kind to new editors. ¶ If you say something and later realize that it was mistaken, then yes it is indeed disruptive to remove or alter it. You should instead let it stand and make it clear that you realize that it was mistaken. (For details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No legitimate policy-based rationale for deletion or supportive evidence thereof. The article is factual, does not contain overtly promotional language, and contains multiple reliable sources from industry-specific sources as well as others. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hickok45 satisfies the requirements of GNG. Closing admin please note that the submitter has voted twice. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GNG is met, as well as the first criteria under WP:WEBCRIT. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Wikiinfomation: Other people's edits of your comments here accord with their understanding of a set of guidelines that set out extremely strict constraints on what editing of comments (even your own) is possible. You'll find these guidelines here. Please either: (A) read these guidelines, digest them, and edit only in accordance with them; or (B) stop tampering with anybody's comments (including your own). If you realize that you want to amend your earlier comment, the best way is to leave it just as it is and to add a signed, dated amendation. -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised that Youtube channels are notable, but they are. This article has plenty of sources. And there are lots of other articles on channels. See Category:YouTube channels. Felsic2 (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right I guess it is permitted even though personally I don't think it's encyclopedic material, I hope Wikipedia is ready for the 1 billion YouTube users when they all find out.Wikiinfomation (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These discussions aren't about personal opinion, they're about the various notability guidelines. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right and my opinion is that it's not notable but for some unknown reason as pointed out above by Felsic2 they are allowing it so I changed my "delete" to "comment" because editors opinions don't matter.Wikiinfomation (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to take it personally. The subject of the article meets the General Notability Guideline. It's that simple - it's not some sort of insult. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that against you personally but Wikipedia is what is at risk and it's policies need to change. Haven't any of you seen this? It's only a matter of time and all of this could be gone.Wikiinfomation (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for attempts to change Wikipedia's policies. There are places for doing that. But before essaying policy revision, look at two guidelines: WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. Suggest improvements on the talk page of each (and not here). -- Hoary (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in RS appears sufficient to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mentioned in a number of third party sources and meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2017 (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.