This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Kansas. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Kansas|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Kansas. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Kansas/archive

Mr. Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have marked this article for deletion. While I'm a big fan of Mr. Beat's work, and would ideally like this article kept, I don't think that he passes WP:GNG right now. All of the non-social media sources are local sources, or not reliable at all, indicating that he has little to no national significance. Beat is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL content creator; achieving 1 million subscribers is a much less notable feat than it was even 10 years ago. I completed a WP:BEFORE search but I couldn't find anything meaningful that wasn't already in the article. I don't see a WP:NAUTHOR pass either, since he's released only two books, and each only has one local review. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:4D29:6661:1D4E:6058 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, Politics, Economics, Geography, Kansas, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have little to add beyond the nominator's honest and thorough rationale. The article appears to have a lot of sources but most point toward the guy's own posts. He has a little notice from local newspapers but not enough to support an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG yet, but the BEFORE search is hard since it's all of his videos. SportingFlyer T·C 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There have been some keep !votes below, so I just want to make clear that I really only see up to one GNG-qualifying source in the article, which is a local publication's review of his book. My BEFORE search brought up only his own content or promotional sources. He has received some local coverage which is mostly promotional. It's not impossible there's better coverage, but most of the sources in the article are Youtube links or Twitter links. SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify The article's content and history can be kept back in the draftspace until sufficient further coverage is found, if that ever becomes the case in the future. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. Beat has coverage in local press, which counts towards Mr. Beat being a notable figure. Additionally, this coverage is more than many YouTubers who have pages on here receive. NesserWiki (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Mr. Beat is one of the more famous/notable YouTube historians on the site. If he was less notable, I may be in favor of deletion but this is not the case. Lertaheiko (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep if someone as irrelevant as Junlper gets a Wikipedia page, than people like Mr. Beat should get one as well. By comparison, he's far more notable. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC) — JonathanMRosenberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep basically what everyone else above who has said keep said. Daemonspudguy (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that something that only receives local coverage is automatically not notable. There are thousands of high schools, library systems and people with Wikipedia articles that will probably only ever receive local coverage, but a reliable, independent secondary source with significant coverage counts towards notability whether its a tiny news station or the BBC. Pointing to subscriber count as evidence of non-notability is about as useful as pointing to it as evidence of notability. (I will note that Mr. Beat posted a screenshot of this discussion to Bluesky (which is how I got here) but not in a WP:Canvassing manner probably with good intentions, but it's definitely become a WP:Canvassing issue regardless). Edit: Given that the nominator has clarified their justification for the deletion, I went through the sources again, and I feel like there's one source that definitely counts toward notability, the aforementioned Lawrence Journal article, and one source that might count towards notability, a sorta review of his SCOTUS book which includes some commentary beyond just the interview component with Mr. Beat. If we're following WP:THREE, then I would probably suggest Draftify given that he seems about one source off from notability. Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very definition of canvassing... SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to or posting a a discussion is not in itself canvassing. Canvassing needs to be done with the intention of influencing the outcome. Given that the text of the post is just self-deprecating humor, I highly doubt that intention exists. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source Lertaheiko (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with what the above editors have said. Local news coverage counts just the same as major outlets in terms of notability. As popular Internet personalities become more prevalent and the mainstream press becomes more separated from Internet culture, we as Wikipedia editors must reckon with the fact that a notable person might not always be covered in the mainstream press. So, if we keep on using big coverage in the press as being "notable", we end up with archaic standards that will most likely miss out on notable people in the future.

All that being said, however, when comparing Mr. Beat to others, he unquestionably surpasses the requirements for being notable enough to have his own Wiki page. LizardDoggos (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC) — LizardDoggos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I am the IP editor who initially nominated this for deletion, and I'm surprised at the sudden burst of canvassing votes here. They should all be discarded for the purposes of determining consensus; consisting of a mixture of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and claiming I'm trying to discredit local sources: my point is that they are all WP:ROUTINE coverage of him. Doing stuff like local talks about his books, where he mostly does the speaking instead of it being about him doesn't amount to notability here. We need sources that discuss him specifically, simple as that. The only good source here is the Lawrence Journal, and a single article doesn't surpass the WP:THREE sources generally needed to clear the bar of notability. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:2081:789F:4237:C594 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Mr. Beat is a relevant topic and a very prominent YouTuber with tons of credible sources about him, and CLEARLY it should be kept. Skcin7 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTNOTABLE? 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:D9D2:6AAD:B5E6:512F (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Just not enough coverage for notability... I don't find very many RS, [1] is one, but I don't consider it enough. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Found this from the same source. Probably leaning draftify. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: or draftify, per Oaktree. (yes, I'm here from the tweet.) charlotte ^👸♥ 02:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I decided to look into the local coverage of the subject a bit more closely, since there have been statements that it's been largely promotional. While some of them do seem that way, such as the Lawrence Times article about a book discussion, this is hardly the only source. He has had an extended interview on KQTV^[1], a television station in St. Joseph, Missouri, which is in the Kansas City area. To reference what the nominator was saying about the local sources not being great because they are routine, I would like to add that this interview does not appear directly connected with any planned event, such as a book release or announcement. I do not believe this counts as routine. His interview with KCUR-FM would also fall under this, since it is a reliable, third-party, independent secondary source that is also not simply announcing an event or product, but is an actual interview; while the written portion of the article is more about that, the actual interview delves much deeper. I will acknowledge that this article is a bit short, but I cannot in good faith agree that this article should be deleted. I think he does fulfill the GNG, and my vote is for it to be kept. ~Junedude433(talk) 20:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Interviews are not secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is worth noting that Mr Beat posted this page onto his bluesky yesterday with the caption “I am printing this off and putting it on my wall to motivate me for the rest of my life”, likely prompting the influx of people to comment keep. IP should be aware of this and prevent heavy bias in favor of keeping. (Hell, he may be reading this very comment right now, in which case I’m sorry that your wiki page may be deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B14C:3B7F:ECFA:A361:729B:73A2 (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is a page on Mr. Beats website that that lists a bunch of reliable sources related to him. May be useful in finding sources. Lertaheiko (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]