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. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webdriver Torso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

does a YouTube account meet WP:NWEB just because it posts these simple videos with blue and red rectangles? It does appear to be covered on several internet news forums and newspapers, but may fail the "Presumed" guideline of WP:GNG Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this article should be deleted, because what if someone wants lots of information about the subject? ApparatumLover 22:34 PM, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as per the general notability guideline; there's a hell of a lot of pretty in-depth coverage out there - [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A short-term fad, at least at this point, about a single youtube video that went viral. Newspapers and other sources pick up these stories because they are click-bait. Check back in five years and see if the video is still considered significant. And to ApparatumLover, if someone wants more info about it, they can Google it the same way we did. LaMona (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone Googles the subject, they will find most of the information in this article, but not all of it. This article contains extra, hard-to-find info about the YouTube channel. ApparatumLover 01:25 PM, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, I see plenty of significant coverage in the sources provided by Dylanfromthenorth. LaMona, notability is not temporary. If it's notable now, it'll still be notable in five years. Furthermore, the nominator's rationale essentially boils down to "not notable because it sounds stupid" and doesn't explain any other reason why the GNG doesn't apply here. --Jakob (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of in-depth reliable sources as noted above to establish WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Please, notice that although the article presents the topic as a YouTube account, the real topic here is the Internet phenomenon that the account became after people noticed these (hundreds of thousands of) strange and mysterious videos and started speculating about their nature and purpose. The mystery became popular enough to motivate several reliable secondary sources to write articles about it and these sources, already cited in this AfD discussion and in the article itself, make the topic notable as per WP:GNG. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 15:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, due to extensive coverage by secondary sources. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2014 (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.