Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lonelygirl15

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. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lonelygirl15

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

• Delete On speedy, bt fiercely contested. The bottom line is that this person is nn and just someone who has posted some videos on YouTube. To put this to the point, my cousin has released 6 videos, so does that warrant her own article? No. Neither should this person. J.J.Sagnella 08:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have let you speedy it, either. Whatever the merits of an article on this young lady, it is clearly not a speedy. By the bye, please remember that AfD is not a vote, and a well-written nomination (as opposed to just plonking down a bullet point and some lame bold text and pretending you've done your duty) has been scientifically proven to make you more attractive to the sex of your choice. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - What are you talking about? I don't see anything wrong with the nomination. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dime a dozen amateur video actress. Not notable. Ohconfucius 08:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• um.. well - Keep, obviously. Front page of New York Times nytimes.com and 700,000+ views = notable! This is actually fairly straightforward! (but then i did write the article.....!) Petesmiles 09:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - may have been on the front page but the newspaper website report [no hits]. Does not seem to pass any of the WP:WEB or WP:BIO criteria - Peripitus (Talk) 09:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not convinced that a YouTube viewing statistic is a good starting point for notability. There's also (at least in the Bio criteria) a requirement for "multiple non-trivial coverage" and one appearance on the nytimes site does not multiple coverage make. BigHaz 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete YouTube poster. 219 unique Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article the author refers to, here, hardly constitutes a claim to actual notability, any more than does being blogged. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 10:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Times mention is hardly notable and if she ever does become famous she can be re-added. Mark Grant 11:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and per Starblind and BigHaz. Nonnotable youtube camgirl. Subject was not mentioned "on the front page" of NYTimes. Was mentioned in an NYTimes.com blog post which appeared as a small picture and link on the main page of the nytimes.com website for a day or less than a day. Also much mainstream news content is not encyclopedically notable and much is also not even news. Like this. Bwithh 12:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Starblind, BigHaz, and Bwithh all summed up nicely the problems I have with this article.--Isotope23 12:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Reference in a nytimes blog does not remotely count as multiple non-trivial published works. Fan-1967 13:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Couldn;t find the NY times article, according to above she was mentioned in a blog post. Whhen she gets and article written about her, then she is notable (see Brooke Brodack) Viridae^Talk 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. or should we repeal WP :VAIN and start each doing our vanity pages? --Svartalf 16:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not-notable and fails WP:BIO. Scorpiondollprincess 16:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone and close up this AfD per WP:SNOW. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 22:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC) No change in vote ←ΣcoPhreek→ 04:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - as the only 'keep' voter, its obvious that you guys should delete the article - Just thought i'd mention that a quick google - and as perfectly highlighted on her site - [1] - now shows coverage all over the shop, or to put it another way, 'mulitple non-trivial coverage' - from the likes of NY Times.com, Denver Post, Media Village to name the biggest three (follow link to see more) .... Dare i suggest that perhaps some of these voters might not have had a good enough look at this one? hmmmm....... Petesmiles 04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, All the pieces are brief blurbs or blogs (which are not reliable sources in my book). I would call them all "trivial" coverage or coverage from non-reliable sources. I still don't see evidence of multiple non-trivial mention in reliable sources and that is the problem here.--Isotope23 11:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - BraDRoBBo writes:- Why delete it? It's informative nonetheless, and i was actually searching for this on Wikipedia and found it, it does not SAY she is fake, just says that some people believe this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.78.79 (talk • contribs)
• STRONG KEEP - While I dislike LG15, we do have a precident of notablility set by other Notable YouTube users, such as Emmalina, Brooke Brodack, and BowieChick. She was noted in the New York Times, and is wildly popular on YouTube. I would suggest a major re-write of the page to Wiki Standards and also to create a reference link to not only the NYT's article but some of the other media she has been mentioned in. I'll offer to do this if we have a keep concensus. --Bschott 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The articles you reference are in the process of getting merged into Notable_YouTube_Users. Are you suggesting a merge? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep/Comment - Perhaps a complete re-write of this page with more detail and properly sectioned off areas with headings would be excellent. A merge though, would that make it so that it is linked, like the others are, on the Notable_YouTube_Users page? It should have a page of its own, as there is so much that can be written about this girl, whether you like her or not - but hopefully not from a biased point of view as to whether it is staged or not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.78.79 (talk • contribs)

User's only edits are to this page, possible vote stacking. J.J.Sagnella 21:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment, you can rewrite it if this article survives AfD, but it doesn't matter. It's not a formatting or style issue here, it is the fact that she meets none of the WP:BIO guidelines. A rewrite won't change that unless you are aware of reliable sources and non-trivial coverage that those opining keep are failing to mention.--Isotope23 01:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Another comment - the article has now been substantially cleaned up, and has had a whole bunch of productive editors contribute (though not to this vote... hmmmm....) I think the clear concensus here to delete is pretty self-evidently wrong, and would invite all voters to take another look at the article and the story now and I reckon you'll probably agree.... maybe! - cheers, Petesmiles 00:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, she still doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines though... that is the issue here. The new external links section is all non-reliable sources and I'd say most of it (like her MySpace) should removed as self-promotional links that add nothing to an encyclopedic article.--Isotope23 01:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to notable YouTube users. --Ixfd64 03:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What makes internet folks think that they become notable so easily?—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 07:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If not, at least redirect to YouTube. --Brazucs (_TALK | ^CONTRIBS) 07:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

*Merge with and Redirect to Notable YouTube Users article. --Satori Son 18:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're telling me that every Youtube uploader can have a redirect page? Even the two people mentioned above? Where do you draw the line? J.J.Sagnella 19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, the slippery slope argument. Nicely done. Are you an attorney as well or do you just debate like one? My fully articulated position, your mischaracterization aside, is that while the subject of this article does not appear to be sufficiently notable to have her own article, it would be appropriate under the circumstances to Redirect to an article that already exists! I refuse to be baited into making predictions on issues not before us now, specifically, the likely notability of "every Youtube uploader" and whether they deserve their own article, a redirect page, or neither. As far as where "to draw the line", those issues should be decided on a case by case basis using the criteria set forth in WP:BIO. The intrinsic value of any precedence that may or may not be established here is another matter entirely. --Satori Son 20:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not an attorney. And I'm overwhelmed by some of those words, please try and descibe it in layman's terms. And care to determine what makes it agree with wp:bio. Just because this person has appeared on a notable website, isn't really very high. For instance my cousin who I have descibed at the top has appeared on the front page of a nn website as well. J.J.Sagnella 21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I suppose since I did admit that the article subject was not notable enough for its own article, it does seem a little silly to Redirect to an article entitled Notable YouTube Users. I have withdrawn an earlier comment and stricken the above opinion. Apologies to all for my verbosity. --Satori Son 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep! - Why does it matter wether its real or fake it is a real story in any case! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.8.211.237 (talk • contribs) .

User's only edit is to this page, possible vote stacking. J.J.Sagnella 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or possibly Weak keep She has achieved a bizarre level of notability in a short time. The article needs improvement however. She is no less notable than the other Notable YouTube users. If those articles are OK, this should be too. Siradia 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (yet another) Comment

Hopefully a summation may be useful.....

Does Lonelygirl15's coverage constitute 'multiple non-trivial'? - my opinion, Yes - others above, No.

Does Lonelygirl15's 'notability' meet the Guidelines therefore? - my opinion, Yes - others above, No.

Is YouTube a notable website - concensus over the wiki says Yes, my opinion, Yes - others above seem to be saying No.

Is Lonelygirl15 'famous' on YouTube - pretty obviously yes - we all agree on this one!

Is this article a fun, informative, appropriate article for wikipedia, or another annoying geeky disctraction from the serious task of collecting knowledge? - I guess that's up to you Mr. Closing Admin...... (ps - go on, keep it!) - thanks folks! - Petesmiles 06:45, 9 August 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.