Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Cookbook (Youtuber)

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. ✗plicit 14:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Cookbook (Youtuber)

[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)

All sources are primary, seems non-notable, only a couple of trivial mentions on the internet in secondary sources DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Internet. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage at all about this person that I can find. Sources in the article are social media/video websites. Nothing at all for RS or any sort of media coverage. Nothing for notability and the lack of sourcing doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No !vote at present, but wonder if we need to look in non-Latin script for references. His youtube channel has 9.7 million subscribers. I found some interviews with him, news about a restaurant opening, but only one in-depth reference: https://www.sundaytimes.lk/211226/plus/their-recipe-to-success-466461.html . Anyone who can search in his native language's script? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Oaktree b’s comments - social media is not an acceptable or reliable independent secondary source - fails WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - does not meet WP:GNG. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems way too promotional in nature. No significant coverage either.Plasticwonder (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article was made by a sock/meat puppeter. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:29, 5 February 2025 (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.