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 12:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitesolutions[edit]

Infinitesolutions (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)

A sort of "procedural" nomination; PROD declined by author with no explanation (Reason: No indication of why this channel is notable enough for its own article.) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Couldn't find any significant coverage of this Youtube channel. It needs RS to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG

UphillAthlete (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because this channel is not notable. Can't find significant coverage about it. GoldenHayato (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, aside from the Lifehacker article that just mention the channel in passing, there is no WP:SIGCOV for the channel, and WP:GNG can't be established. The ABC article covers it more, but I don't think it establishes notability. Also the same reference is used over and over again, only 2 sources are actually used.SunDawntalk 00:27, 13 February 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.