Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy Tube
as re-creator): the nominator's rationale is bizarre. What about ''The Times'' or ''Vox'' is not reliable? I have read the full ''Times'' source {{U|DanielRigal}} and I can confirm it is not an interview. (I can also confirm Harriet Brewis is completely unrelated to HBomberguy—see https://twitter.com/HattieBrewis/status/1166090762737598466 this Twitter thread.) Not sure what relevance Twitter or some "crap sourcing" has to this discussion since I made it completely clear which sources relate to the claim I make of notability. {{pb}} I considered this long and hard before moving the article to mainspace and I saw in-depth coverage of two aspects of Thorn's recent works (Shakespeare stream and "Men. Abuse. Trauma") and non-trivial coverage of a third (philosophy education) in multiple works (which can be combined to show notability per ). I find it quite bizarre that I wrote a lengthy rationale '''Special:Permalink/913735183#Notability|here''' justifying notability and then the nominator has ignored all of it in favour of unsubstantiated assertion that all of the sources are "not independent coverage or not reliable". I repeat: what of ''The Times'' or ''Vox''? They also say "see the previous AfD" but that's something I mentioned—five of the seven sources that I present for notability have been released since that AfD. I note that XOR'easter also believes interviews can count towards notability, something I wanted to avoid as I know it's a disputed point, but if we agree with that premise then indeed the ''Evening Standard'' and BBC Radio sources provided very strong additional evidence of notability
— User:Bilorv, 06:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BASIC (Wikipedia:Notability)