Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HooplaKidz
- 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
HooplaKidz
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- HooplaKidz (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)
Does not meet
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 19:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 19:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I think the sources are good enoguh, but 90% of the article is based off unsourced stuff. Removing that would cause it to be a worthless stub. So get rid of it. Rlink2 (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Yet another kid's things whose notability exists as solely an electronic babysitter with no industry acclaim (yes it has 4.3 million subscribers, but how many of those haven't watched a video from them in years?). Please note this shouldn't be confused with chatter) 22:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)]
- Delete. I hadn't been very impressed when I came across it back in 2016 and to be honest, I should have just tagged it as a speedy deletion as promotional content. I cleaned it up some, but the article is still full of fluff years later. There is some nods towards notability but it's pretty tenuous and a lot of it looks to be reprints of press releases, offhand mentions in relation to something else, and notices of it being acquired by various groups over the years. If the current company that owns it has a page I'd recommend redirecting it there with a brief mention on the page about it owning that channel. I don't know that there's anything else that needs to be added. On a side note, I will say that I don't really have much faith in the Parents' Choice Award anymore, as it comes across as more of a marketing gimmick than anything else given wording on its about/FAQ page. For example, the statement "A licensing fee is associated with the use of the Parents’ Choice Award seals, which are trademarked property of Parents’ Choice Foundation." doesn't really give off a lot of integrity. That the awards are given out per season and just one category has 331 "winners" give off the strong impression that it's pay to play and you'd have to be practically Irwin Mainway to lose. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm surprised this article has been allowed to stand for seven years, given that the creator seems to have been blocked for the very act of its creation. The main distinguishing factor here appears to be that these people got in early on the brainrot-inducing kids content game, some years before that genre went into total overheat mode and forced YouTube to regulate it at least a tiny bit. At any rate, as has been pointed out above, most sources seem to be generic "change of ownership"-notices and barely obfuscated reprints of press releases, so it's a D from me... Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. Much of this is unsourced.Gabe114 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)]
- Delete fails talk) 07:03, 1 April 2022 (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.