Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oversimplified (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 delete. ✗plicit 10:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oversimplified

[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)

I would have CSD'd this. but cannot find the original deletion (so it may have been CSD's the last time, I know it was deleted). No evidence of any notability (still).Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was deleted last year in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oversimplified. Lack of sources covering this channel.--Mvqr (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it just could not find it, clear case of CSD.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty certain this is what the article looked like last time, so should qualify for G4. As before, I'm still not finding any independent sources with significant coverage (just a brief mention in a Times (UK) article). Schazjmd (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I didn't found any relevant coverage of this topic in reliable sources; most likely non-notable per Wikipedia standards. (doesn't meet WP:GNG) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG not enough sources to support the article Juggyevil (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 23:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Because it's awful. 48Pills (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But that shouldn't be a reason to delete it. See WP:IDL – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should really be snow close now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2021 (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.