Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ysabella brave

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 was delete, discounting the various WP:AADD opinions to the contrary. Note that [1] is indeed substantial coverage by a mainstream newspaper, so if more substantial coverage by a reliable source shows up, the article could probably be recreated. Sandstein 19:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ysabella brave

Speedied and then contested; I decided to give this the benefit of the doubt. I see no credible evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC and my opinion is that this should be Deleted.--Isotope23 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Italic text

  • Delete per nom - no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. A YouTube star is not inherently notable, neither is a competition finalist. No evidence of coverage by independent sources. Walton monarchist89 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:MUSIC - yet another YouTuber. The Rambling Man 21:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7. I see why this was contested, but really, this singer is not notable. YechielMan 04:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC by end of this AfD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC). Alf photoman 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn bio. --Kukini 21:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - shouldn't noteability be a statistical value? [CheckHitcount] 2 February 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.87.112 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - do not consider this person as 'yet another youtuber' but more of a 'phenomenon' and therefore zeitgeist, or 'noteable' 4 February 2007 Applet 04:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - She was recently featured in Wired News. See the footnote added to her entry today. She was also featured on MSNBC on February 1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.11.254 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep - Apart from being a talented performer who's BIO will develop, she is notable as a record-holder for honors on YouTube. Also this article can be a reference from articles describing the phenomena of YouTube. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeSW17 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete per above. Kamope · talk · contributions 12:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep this page this woman is tellented web based singer who is developing her carear via the net and has every right to use a web based encylopidia to diarise her progress. Giles Ashton

  • Keep - She's starting to get press beyond YouTube and blogs -- MSNBC, for example.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkakid (talk • contribs) all editors contributions have been to this article.
  • All sources provided so far have either been non-reliable sources like blogs or trivial mentions (like the MSNBC mention, which curiously was apparently only done on the television station and not on their website [2].--Isotope23 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: The sources provided are all unreliable. She seems to have a fanbase on YouTube, but that is hardly a standard for inclusion. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: Ysabella+brave — news, books, scholar Addhoc 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - above searches don't produce any results. Also, no reliable sources included in article. Addhoc 13:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • MSNBC isn't reliable? And there is no "only" when talking about TV.
  • I said "or trivial", referring to the MSNBC mention... and "only" refers to TV as opposed to the website they have as well, where no mention is made.--Isotope23 17:39, 7 February 2007 (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.