Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbox Therapy
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 September 6. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Unbox Therapy (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 not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. ubiquity (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Whilst I would agree I would also say that many other YouTubers with similar notability exist so far, and this article may improve over time WP:HASPOT. I would also recommend a name change to "Lewis Hilsenteger" to match other similar articles. Kinda Stolen (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Kinda Stolen, that is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:WAX. Read the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment ThePlatypusofDoom, I agree that WP:WAX applies to the original Article marked here for deletion, but WP:CRYSTAL seems off topic for this discussion as it would normally apply to the Wikipedia article in question for deletion rather than this particular discussion on whether to keep the article. --Mle ii (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Oops! Apologies. I still think that the article potentially falls under WP:HASPOT Kinda Stolen (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete My searches reveal insufficient secondary, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Chrisw80 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I do agree that as it stands this article doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Though with a quick search on the links pointed out above and a bit of a search on Wikipedia I do see references that would potentially meet the WP:GNG and WP:WEB requirements. Specifically the notoriety/controversy involved with #Bendgate and the viral video that was created by Lewis Hilsenteger. This content on Unbox Therapy [1] ended up with several worthy news sources, such as Bloomberg Television [2], CNN[3] and Forbes[4], reporting on it and either directly or indirectly pointing to this viral video. Even so much to cause Consumer Reports to do testing [5] and for Apple to respond to said product bend-ability in an article in Forbes [6]. For Wikipedia citations see the article Bendgate and here List_of_scandals_with_"-gate"_suffix#Technology. As for meeting WP:WEB, that's a bit more up for interpretation and I'm not sure I provided sufficient evidence too meet that requirement. --Mle ii (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ iPhone 6 Plus Bend Test
- ^ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2014-09-29/iphone-bendgate-its-consumer-reports-vs-unbox-therapy
- ^ http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/24/technology/mobile/apple-iphone-bend/
- ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2015/04/19/apple-bendgate-solve
- ^ Consumer Reports test results find iPhone 6 and 6 Plus not as bendy as believed We stress test Apple's new phones, plus comparable models from Samsung, LG, and HTC. iPhone 6 And 6 Plus Bend Test – Consumer Reports News. September 26, 2014 08:00 PM
- ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2014/09/25/apple-does-not-say-sorry-over-bendgate/
- Delete at best as there's nothing particularly better convincing for the needed solid notability here. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.