Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LisaNova

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 no consensus. W.marsh 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LisaNova

LisaNova (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable "Youtube celebrity". WarpstarRider 22:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or possibly Speedy Delete, no evidence of any notability off YouTube, and nothing truly spectacular within YouTube either. I suspect some of the "Other Notable YouTube Celebrities" linked to in the article should go too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Youtube doesn't make you notable. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You're notable if people take notice of you, which people have done with her 644,000 times over the past 5 months. I don't see why Youtube notability would be much less valid than Google notability. (Especially since the latter recently bought out the former...) --Arvedui 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like original research to me. Unless some sources outside YouTube are provided, this should be deleted.--Transfinite 21:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are Youtube's internal user stats showing high popularity insufficient? --Arvedui 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As Arvedui says: if this is original research, then any research is original--the author looked up the secondary sources himself, right? YouTube is not the author here--it's the primary source. JudahH 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Published sources are needed, not a hit counter. WarpstarRider 01:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Define "published". Here's a dictionary def. (answers.com): To bring to the public attention; announce. Something can be published online--what's so magic about print? I find the distinctions you keep drawing rather specious.

• Strong Keep and improve. YouTube is like a media body in itself. Asserting YouTube isnt like a TV station for example is wrong, out out of times. LisaNova is a rising star, this article needs to develope along with her. I think it should remain to be seen how much traffic and edits this page recieves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.9.197 (talk • contribs)
• Strong delete - I came across this one whilst doing my weekly speedy deletion cull of new youtube & blog 'personalities' that had slipped through the new page patrol. I nearly just speedied it anyway, but it's going through the process now, so there we go. Non notable biography, with no assertion of notability whatsoever. Proto::type 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails notability, no actual news stories Palfrey 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - In twenty years YouTube will be considered a huge part of a media revolution that is going on. We are thinking about now. Think about posterity. I agree with with the unsigned user, give it time.Enjoitherhythm 00:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) —User's first edit.
• Delete not nonable. Mukadderat 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve - Youtube's user-stats are a perfectly reliable reference, and this girl has 14,000+ people watching her, with over 600,000 pageviews over the past 5 months. Whether or not her Google-stats are comparable, she clearly occupies a spot in the collective consciousness larger than most. --Arvedui 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - YouTube popularity certainly counts as notable - David Gerard 08:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

According to what? There is absolutely no demonstration of notability in this article. WarpstarRider 08:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As a note, there are a few hits in mainstream news sources on google news for LisaNova, but mostly incidental mentions. Is borderline. Morwen - Talk 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Those would qualify as "trivial" coverage as defined in the guidelines, since she isn't the subject of any of those articles. WarpstarRider 22:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep No opinion on where to draw the line for notable, but I don't agree that notability from YouTube alone cannot be notability. But I don't feel like having this argument on every single "YouTube" page which is created. Isn't there a way to create a discussion page dedicated to the overall issue? JudahH 21:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment / Update I added an LA Times article as a refernce. --Oakshade 23:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Article requires a login, and the title doesn't seem to indicate that it is about this particular user. WarpstarRider 23:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Title doesn't, but the article has a large section of it about her. Never claimed more than that. Thanks for the link note. I'll work on getting full access (LATimes.com membership is free, btw). --Oakshade 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

She'd have to be the sole focus of the article. Just a section of one article doesn't really cut it. WarpstarRider 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim she was the sole focus of it. It's a reliable source that verifies material in the article. The subject doesn't</> have to be the sole focus to do that. --Oakshade 01:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. Non-trivial coverage does not necessarily mean "sole focus" of an article, it means exactly what it says: non-trivial. Yamaguchi先生 09:51, 9 November 2006

Fixed LA Times link. Found same article that's non-subscription in the Chicago Tribune (sister newspaper of LA Times). --Oakshade 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Looks like the Chicago Tribune article has also gone subcription only. Reverted back to the LA Times version that requires a subscription to view. At least it's free. --Oakshade 05:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep YouTube keeps growing and growing in notability and importance (that's why Google is paying $1.65 billion for it and Verizon is in content talks with them [1]). Its stars are part of the reason why. --Oakshade 23:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The notability of the website does not make individual users automatically notable. WarpstarRider 23:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

But the stars (not just users) of that extremely notable website are. --Oakshade 00:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I state again: Just because the website is notable does not mean that any popular user there is instantly notable by Wikipedia standards. WarpstarRider 00:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. --Oakshade 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One that is more supported by the existing policies and guidelines. How on earth does it follow that if a website is notable, any popular users there are considered automatically notable regardless of any lack of significant outside recognition? That has no basis in any of the notability guidelines. WarpstarRider 01:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Because when you're a star of an enormously popular website, you have notability. Besides, for "outside recognition" i just found many more WP:RS that recognize this subject as notable. [2][3][4]... I remember you now. Didn't you try to delete Jessica Lee Rose and then moderators had to lock it and the following AfD consensus was Keep?... Well anyway, that's a great example of "how it follows" that a star of notbale website becomes notable. --Oakshade 01:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The first two are borderline passing mentions, and the last one doesn't seem to mention this subject at all. Again, popular YouTube users are not automatically notable just because they are popular on YouTube. WarpstarRider 01:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

At least this one is. The 3rd source does mention her (3rd paragraph from the bottom on page 1). The 4 (including this new one from the Chicago Tribune- [5] are very relaible sources giving "significant outside recognition" as you stipulated was nessesary. I see you've avoided the Jessica Lee Rose example as an answer to your previous question. --Oakshade 02:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So that third article uses her name once; that's the very definition of trivial coverage. And I "avoided" the Jessica Rose example because it has nothing to do with this argument (and for the record, my position there was for merge and redirect to the lonelygirl article, not deletion). WarpstarRider 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Trivial" sources refers to things like "mentioning the person in passing" and "telephone directory listings." While that New Yorker article seems to mention her in passing, the others, particularly the Los Angeles Times one which has significant coverage, are examples of her having "significant outside recognition." The Jessica Lee Rose mention (you did delete all contents of it, btw [6]) was simply a direct answer to your question which you didn't seem to counter. I was just curious. --Oakshade 02:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• keep please not all youtubers are notable but this one is Yuckfoo 00:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not by WP standards. WarpstarRider 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes even by WP standards. After performing a cursory search on LexisNexis I was able to locate five unique and non-trivial articles about LisaNova (also "Lisa Nova"), this person meets WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 10:19, 9 November 2006

• Keep per several commenters above. As an example, The Los Angeles Times recently referred to two people, Lonelygirl15 and LisaNova, as "home-grown celebrities" in their October 23, 2006 article titled "CAPITALIZING ON AMATEUR VIDEO ; YouTube users keep dialogue running". Roughly half of the 26 paragraph article is devoted to Nova, and the other to Lonelygirl15. Wikipedia is the encyclopedic resource that people would expect to learn more about this person. Yamaguchi先生 09:58, 9 November 2006
• Keep This YouTube 'celebrity' seems to be notable; and with there being sources available that are verified, deletion seems to be unwarranted. Brooke Brodack is another example of a notable meme from this site. --SunStar Net 10:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Yamaguchi and several others. --Myles Long 15:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per David "Fucking" Gerard ... (P.S. if you dont get the joke read his WikiTruth article.)  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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.