Whittaker family: My thoughts on this are fairly simple, so I'll just quote the proposed deletion: "This article consists entirely of primary sources, tabloids, and podcasts. I can not find any RS covering it. See WP:SBST" Cpotisch ( talk ) 21:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 15 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 21:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Project:Biography of living persons demands a more immediate requirement for sourcing on this, not the weaker requirement that the content could be sourced.   It's currently sourced to several YouTube videos, the Daily Star , the Daily Express , and the New York Post .  All of those are on Project:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as bad sources that should not be used.  Uncle G ( talk ) 02:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you have a stance on deletion then?  Again, I can't find any RS to replace those junk sources, so in my view this points pretty strongly towards that.  Cpotisch ( talk ) 21:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : here from WikiProject West Virginia.   This seems like tabloid exploitation and little else; arguments about "inbreeding" point to pseudoscience—it would be relevant only if there were evidence of specific genetic traits or abnormalities being concentrated or magnified to cause the members physical difficulties, but here all that is alleged is that they're "inbred" and grotesque.   I'd say it seemed defamatory, but I suppose if family members were voluntarily interviewed, then it's only defamatory to peripherally-associated people—perhaps West Virginians or Appalachian folk generally—which wouldn't violate BLP.  Even if we take the sources at face value, verifiability does not demonstrate notability, and the only evidence of notability is a high number of YouTube views—which might just be due to the volume of the channel.   But since the YouTube channel also seems to be of marginal notability at best, I'm not convinced that these views demonstrate notability any more than clickbait does.   I'd like to say "delete", but I don't feel completely impartial due to my feelings about what this story says about West Virginians.   Would like to hear from more people, perhaps from outside the project.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 11:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- Outside the tabloid notariety, I can find no sources that give secondary, analytical treatment to this subject.  On a non-policy note, it's an extremely distasteful and derogatory treatment of the subject.  The latter is not a reason for deletion, but the lack of RS and lack of GNG are certainly valid reasons.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  It's crass and exploitative material based on a crass and exploitative YouTube series.  Cpotisch ( talk ) 22:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Since this was PROD'd before (please next time state this in your edit summary), it is not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Lots of critique here but only one editor specifically advocating Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'd say it's pretty clear all three of the editors who've weighed in so far think this subject is not notable and not supported by particularly good sources.   I only held back from voting because I was concerned about my ability to be impartial, since I'm a West Virginian and I think this article plays up stereotypes about West Virginia.   The proposed deletion was noted in the nomination, and the editor who deprodded it gave no explanation and has not participated in this discussion.   So it seems unlikely that holding the discussion open will produce any different result.  P Aculeius ( talk ) 23:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  Maybe @ Cullen328 could close and delete it?  Cpotisch ( talk ) 02:17, 24 December 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.

Discussion outcome: delete