Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoenice

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 keep‎. in part due to a deletion rationale that reads more like an opinion that a valid argument for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shoenice

[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)

unnotable random youtuber FMSky (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, he's notable. This [1], this [2] and what's in the article. GNG for being a, I don't know, youtube eater of stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless an actual argument for deletion is made. Are the twelve sources in the article just not worthy of comment whatsoever? jp×g 18:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a handful of sources after five minutes' googling, only to find they are already cited in the article..? seems to me like GNG has been met. Akakievich (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2023 (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.