Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nornna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nornna

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

A videoblogger who uploaded loads of videos of her life on YouTube and then realised it was a bad idea and took them down. Googling her name brings back a number of blog posts about her, but is she notable? Are any of these blogs anywhere near a reliable source? Is Nornna anything else other than a footnote in YouTube's history or a lesson in why uploading every facet of your life for the men in suits is a bad idea? - Hahnchen 00:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Just because it's pretty much over doesn't mean that they should take it down. It's really cool to find just about everything on Wikipedia and find out more info about. Plus, the pet rock was a fad that is over, but it's on here. tynews2001 07:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:V isn't bloody likely. Ronabop 02:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I would cite more but three WPs is more than enough. SorryGuy 06:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nornna youtube produces 18,800 ghits. Notable enough. Loom91 07:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Only 136 of which are unique hits, and the overwhelming majority of those are blog, Myspace and Livejournal entries. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep!!! Nornna is a hero to a lot of people, she was living her dream, until people started being over-critical over her.

Keep her, she is essential to YouTube.

  • Comment: A "hero?" Based upon what? She seems to have been one of many hundreds of Webblips who become momentarily noticed on some site and just as swiftly vanish again. Three months from now there'll be some other flash-in-the-pan and "Nornna" will be long forgotten. But if YouTube thinks she's essential, I'm sure YouTube can supply a tribute page right on its own site. RGTraynor 17:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Must look for more info yet. Maybe keep it. Music Master
  • Delete The fact that 99% of her videos have now been taken down virtually guarantees that in a few weeks/months, she will be all but forgotten and merely a footnote in the history of Youtube. She may have gained a following, but stop and think for a moment. Will this article be at all relevant a year from now? I think not. SteveJ2006 10:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete She's just another nobody whos using the internet towards a weak attempt at fame and obviously just putting on an act to garner attention. The whole thing is just a phase that will die out by the summer. Overall, she doesn't deserve the attention shes getting.. Look at the more noteworthy articles in Wikipedia (Ghandi, Churchill, Einstein) and ask yourself if this Kid deserves to be alongside them. Somehow, I don't think so. Frequency24
  • Delete This is nothing more than the exploitation of a mentally handicapped woman that doesn't understand that most of the people watching her videos are watching her out of some sick form of entertainment. If the New York Times and Time Magazine had done their homework, they would not have used her name in their articles. Now, if the bio is to stay on wikipedia, then it should be truthful and not sugarcoated, because while she is gaining "fame" from YouTube, it's a known fact that she is disturbed and is currently in therapy for having a sexual fascination with children.
  • Delete WP:VANITY Don't most Wikipedia entries have factual citations or references? Just because she has a following from a bunch of children does not allow her to become part of this site. Remove this trash and lets never speak of her again.
  • Weak Delete Not as convinced as the majority here, but the situation just seems like a minor fad which has died off fairly quickly and failed to leave much impact or notability.--Cini 17:45, 23 April 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.