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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbeynainsley[edit]

YouTube user account/series of videos with negligible notability. Contravenes WP:WEB, which states "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." Hawker Typhoon 23:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Has also been previously speedy-deleted for non-assertion of notability. Hawker Typhoon 23:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete - This article has as much rights as some of the other youtube members who have wikipedia pages on here (most of them are stubs and have only 10 lines with no sources) within 2 weeks this article should be cleaned-up, will have more sources and will generally be improved... on the youtube page it writes "Fame After Youtube" and Abbey & Ainsley's video appeared on the British Chat show "Richard & Judy" therefore I am fighting that this article is NOT deleted!! I am a fan of abbeynainsley and was watching the "OURTUBE" bit on the Richard & Judy show where it showed some of the Funniest/weirdest videos on Youtube and it played "Abbeynainsleys" 1 minute video "Freaks Of Nature" therefore please KEEP this article. Beck 21:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely - no valid claims to notability here. Yeanold Viskersenn 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability beyond other YouTube "legends" (the words of one of the authors, not mine). Only apparent legitimate cited source does not contain info pertaining to subject. Caknuck 23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm of the opinion that any YouTuber with at least 10,000 YouTube subscribers has achieved a "cult" audience and, thus, notability. Unfortunately, Abbeynainsley has a subscribed viewership of 18. Ichormosquito 06:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete - on the youtube page scroll down to fame beyond youtube and you will see if wrotes "those who have appeared on TV" and Abbeynainsley have appeared on Tv on the Richard & Judy Show, PLUS other members of youtube have a wikipedia entry. Lucyann20088 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "PLUS other members of youtube have a wikipedia entry" is not criteria for inclusion. Sorry. Caknuck 02:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above vote was by a user with only one edit - here. Hawker Typhoon 22:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GreenJoe 05:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of this discussion page[edit]

I have just reverted vandalism to this page by Lucyann20088 who changed other people's comments to make it look like they are in favour of keeping the page. I imagine Lucyann20088 is a sock puppet of someone else here as they both seem to have inexplicably put "Not Delete" instead of "Keep". Yeanold Viskersenn 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: HAHA well 3 users put "Delete" and 2 have put "Not Delete" does this mean the member(s) who put "Delete" is the same person? No!!! 217.38.6.126 22:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC) also im in favor of the article being Kept better not put Not Delete User Yeanold Viskersenn might think im the same person![reply]

You are also the only person I've seen who highlights words in sentences like this. An odd coincidence that all three of you have the exact same writing style and make the same mistakes. Vainly trying to trick the system like this is making an already weak argument look even weaker.Yeanold Viskersenn 00:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incredibly weak assertion of notability. Despite their supposedly "growing popularity", they have only 18 subscribers. WarpstarRider 22:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being on television once isn't a valid claim to notability. An internet serial like lonelygirl15 deserves an article because of the unlikely exposure it received in all forms of mainstream media, this however, has nothing. -Lemike 06:34, 21 April 2007 (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.