Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idol in Action

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 23:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idol in Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The entire article is sourced by YouTube channels in violation of WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and WP:COPYVIO. No evidence of WP:GNG ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Television. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: This article currently meets speedy criteria deletion G12, as it is a blatant copyright infringement and there is no content at all to save if all copyright violations were removed. I've requested the CSD. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 02:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As I was informed of policy I misunderstood/misinterpreted, I'm changing my vote to a regular delete as it actually doesn't meet CSD criterium G12. I am still in favor of regular deletion of the article, as it's clearly a low-quality article and all references would have to be removed (as they're almost certainly copyright violations), combined with the little notability making it impossible, in my mind, to change the references out with notable, independent and reputable sources. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 19:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amadeus1999: What is the source of this alleged copyright violation? Earwig offers no potential sources. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @LaundryPizza03: Literally all of the References section. It only links to YouTube videos, most of which belong to channels where content is almost certainly copyrighted under licenses not compatible with Wikipedia, as is the default for YouTube creators. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 14:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amadeus1999: That has nothing to do with the copyright status of this article, unless one or more of those external links is itself a copyright violation, as the text is not a copyright violation — you can just remove all the references if they are indeed to copyright-infringing videos. However, using only YouTube references is a concern since these are all primary sources and YouTube is not a reliable source. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @LaundryPizza03: I get that, but if I remove all references since they'd be copyright violations, the entire article would be unsourced which would still get it in a CSD guideline? Unless I'm mistaken about that..? Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 14:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Short answer is no, there is no "CSD because there are no references". Primefac (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah yeah, I'm sorry then. I will change my !vote appropriately. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this one was a well written article with some issue of promotional language but the problem comes to the sourcing as it lacks independent, reliable sources backing the information written. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Cirton (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2022 (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.