Deletion of Shout Out UK

Comment: Yes, I was the  reviewer who accepted the draft. It was a very different article then. I realise that someone is going to point out the irony that the accepting reviewer has also proposed it to be discussed for deletion, so I have done so myself
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for creation (WP:AFC)

Comment: of course the vandalism campaign shouldn't count against the article as it has no bearing on notability and we have tools to lock down the article if needed.  It's an interesting case because the paper probably meets our definition of a |reliable source itself and yet is |non-notable.  While we have somewhat lax notability standards when judging RS notability (in part because RS rarely write about other RS), try as I might I can't find anything to justify an article.  I've reviewed the sources in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shout_Out_UK&oldid=647959223 an earlier version of the article, the current version, and done my own search.  Everything was either clearly not-independent (written by the paper or its founder), clearly trivial coverage (one-two line mentions), or clearly not reliable (pay-for-play writeups).  I am open to changing my mind, but right now I just can't justify a keep !vote
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOTE)

Comment: Helloskiable, it doesn't look like anyone's explained how a subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article.  For the most part, a subject needs to pass , the General Notability Guideline, which requires that a subject receive "significant coverage" in multiple, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  This can't be a casual mention -- it's usually the case that several paragraphs ''about'' the subject is a minimum standard -- and we generally look for newspapers, magazines and major media outlets.  User-generated content doesn't qualify -- which includes YouTube, Twitter, blogs, most websites and Wikipedia itself.  What we're looking for are articles about Shout Out from the BBC, the ''Times,'' the ''Guardian'', the ''Daily Mail'' -- that level of coverage.  It's just not there. ''' ''Nha Trang
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)