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. RL0919 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacknjellify[edit]

Jacknjellify (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)

Despite the number of views there is a remarkable lack of any coverage on this channel/couple. There is no independent coverage to be seen, only mentions on YouTube and fan sites, and like their creation, which has been repeatedly found non-notable (Battle for Dream Island), this too doesn't meet inclusion criteria. CUPIDICAE💕 19:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Was a click away from nominating this myself when I noticed it was recreated. I agree, after looking for evidence of notability I have found none, save for the views in the BFDI series, which isn't enough. ASUKITE 19:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, A7 — Very non-notable. After a quick scan of 3 pages of Google, I found absolutely no reliable sources. Just a consideration. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 20:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google search turned up zero independent sources whatsoever. Helen(💬📖) 21:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely non notable. As an aside, I wonder what is so compelling about the Dream Island series that every iteration of possible coatracks has been created for it? Battle for Dream Island itself has been salted, thankfully. --Kbabej (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Found no reliable sources other than very infrequent passing mentions. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unknown Channel which is not notable. And this is coming from a fan.

Jazzy Jazz Jr (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. BFDI may be popular, but the channel itself isn't exactly notable, Maybe have an article for BFDI itself, but there's not really any reliable sources. Also, if the Cary Huang article ever gets approved (which I doubt it will), why even bother. Washy (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete (and Salt if this gets recreated yet again.) Per HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith.Also,I heard someone say this,and I might as well also say it but rephrased.Why even bother keep saying stuff about BFDI stand-alone,when we have Cary Huang?We might as well work on that instead because Cary Huang as an Article Might have a better chance…As long as we don’t just cite constantly with just YouTube.So I still vote delete,but I see this article turning into a redirect if Cary Huang is Approved to be able to become an article.

Edit:I checked the sources of this article,this article is ENTIRELY sourced by YouTube(As of 12:09 2/22/22) Changing this from Delete to Speedy Delete. Danubeball (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This is not just about jacknjellify. It is about the OSC as a whole. Saying that the entire community (approx 2billion total views) isn't notable is just... Ehh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.102.207 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@67.175.102.207: Please see WP:COATRACK. --Kbabej (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In agreement with above. The publicity element to this is blatant. doktorb _words^deeds 21:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and perhaps redirect to Cary Huang if the draft gets accepted? Zelo101 (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I changed my mind. Will be downloading this article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.102.207 (talk)

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.