Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yumi Vu

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 Both Naconkantari 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yumi Vu, biostudentgirl

No sources; fails WP:WEB and WP:BIO. Contested prod. Despite my continued efforts in creating redirects, a copy of the article exists at biostudentgirl. -- Merope ^Talk 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral at the moment, but I have to ask, what DOES make someone notable on YouTube? From the numbers alone, I would see how she is notable, but is this the only judging factor? Basically if she is non-notbale, what separates her from lonelygirl15? Wildthing61476 21:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Thanks for the input all, I don't see how she right now meets WP:BIO. Wildthing61476 18:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The word "notable" literally means "worthy to write about", so if you're going by notability, the judging factor is whether secondary sources exist for the phenomenon, so as to satisfy our verifiability and no original research policies. The sources cited in the article don't look too promising right now, but maybe there's better ones out there. JYolkowski // talk 22:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. As what separates her from lonelygirl15, the latter is unique or notable because of its origins and circumstances. If these articles are kept (I hope not), then they need a drastic copy edit, especially for grammar. Agent 86 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article is different as there a no citations from notable sources. It doesn't even mention what makes this person notable enough to deserve an article. In my opinion it should be speedy deleted under CSD A7. Tarret 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• The article makes an assertion of notability in claiming the number of views she's received. An assertion of notability, even if it doesn't meet our standards, is all it takes to skirt CSD A7. -- Merope ^Talk 23:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "biostudentgirl" gets just 106 unique Google hits (and even I get more than twice that), so this isn't a case of "But I'm famous on the internet, really!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral correction "biostudentgirl" gets 17,800 result Google hits AlexHiggins
  • Please look again, the number of unique hits is only 106. Google automatically filters out the duplicates and keyword-stuffing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • '19,200 hits'. Clicking the last page of your search results does not show you 'unique' pages. That number can be increased numerous ways. Omitting current search results, image search, video search, search with in results, advanced search, safe filter, language etc. Also it is important to note that Google uses an algorithm to sort between 'unique' and duplicate sites/sections. It has difficult in websites that can contain multiple independant websites such as ebay, geocities, and/or telus websites. Multiple articles with in a single source. Forums and discussions. Live Chat logs. etc. Mkdw 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Clean Up. This topic falls under a much more broad question. Internet notability, the corresponding and adequate support of reference. Wikipedia has failed to properly analyize, and subquently standardize, the importance in which 'original research', primary sources, and international attention on the internet can be used as legitimate contributing factors. The U.S. and Canada among other European countries such as Britian and the European Union, practice internet legitimacy under the sections of legal documentation and information. For example, in North America in particular, internet content has been the immediate source and evidence used in criminal law and corporate law. (Management Information Systems, Kenneth C. Laudon). The use of internet content now has an informational value to the point of recognition by international law. It cannot be denied as an illegitimate source to a single case.

Considering all sources found on the internet are legal 'factual' documentation, biostudentgirl has over 19,200 hits on Google, as per linked pages, cached pages, individual pages, and/or referenced pages pertaining to that single name. YouTube, the website with the largest contribution to her success, is a $2 billion dollar independant third party corporation (New York Post). This website has accumulated and attracted over 1 million 'views' of her videos. Her association to the website as one of its "Most Discussed" and "Most Viewed" users put her in the top 200 of a website that receives over 100 million views per day. Though her article may as a stand-alone article may not solely fufill notability, her affiliation would. Please note Wikipedia articles of Company CEO's, T.V. celebrities, Movie celebrities, etc. Individually they are all actors or businessmen with no individual notability (different thatn entrepreneurs) but only notable through corporate affliation.

Any persons listed in a recognized ediorial such as in the New York Times or BBC would immediately satisfy Wikipedia's reference guide. Wikipedia lacks clarity under its policies regarding original research and notability of source. Websites such as Google, Myspace, and YouTube are describing a new form of source credibility. The term "credibility by numbers" (Capital Investment and Valuation, Richard A. Brealey, Stewart C. Myers) describes the power of population on a single 'thing'. The power of voting and seeing versus educational standards. For example in commercial advertising the rule of numbers greatly out influences the valuation of recognition despite product significance. At this stage it is undeniable that biostudentgirl has now an international collection of fanbased websites, hosting sites, and discussion groups as related. More importantly she has the numbers to support that the sources are being made legitimate by numbers alone. This all makes the Wikipedia article the first original research article on biostudentgirl but not the first notable source to her international media attention.

Arguably, internet sources have their own notability; cbc.ca, cnn.com, .gov, .edu, and so on. However, Google ranks its search results by human generated links (Management Accounting in the Digital Economy, Alnoor (EDT) Bhimani). This creates a disillusion to supporting notable sources that compliment an article to meet policy. The search result are diluted by tens of thousands of fan-created websites and thus making the investigation to notable legacy sources almost impossible. Not to mention that by using those links they create a new legitimacy on an individual topic than any single source could. Legacy sources cause a new problem in their own.

The internet and varying communities with in it are esoteric collections of like-minded people as described in The Corporation documentary series. The internet has exceeded the possible resources of our non-internet and notable sources to report on any significant internet phenomena. Furthermore we cannot build our standards on the basis that certain sources have not written about a certain subject and thus makes it un-notable as almost all articles about the internet by legacy sources are side stories.

Unless you challenge these points about using the internet to support notability, you must first challenge Wikipedia policy before you have means to delete this article. Legally this article could be saved, but Wikipedia has a tendancy to be more about a popularity contest over policy decision through past examples. Mkdw 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; no media attention, so it fails WP:BIO. In response to Mkdw (above), if we had an article on every popular youtube/newsgrounds/blogger etc how many articles do you think we'd have? WP:BIO is there for a reason, it also applies to "internet celebrities" because it is inevitable that fans of these internet users will create an article on them. So delete until they get at least some media attention.--Andeh 18:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines (re: WP:BIO) - yet! MidgleyDJ 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• I would consider her YouTube rankings alone (#5 - Most Viewed Channels (This Week), #17 - Most Viewed Channels (This Month), #39 - Most Subscribed Channels (All Time)) would satisfy her WP:BIO criteria for "A large fan base". She holds other such rankings on several other sites and has a total of over 3 million hits collectively. It is also important to note that only two weeks ago she held Most Viewed This Week. I recognize this to be a biased comment, but it's very apparent she is ever increasing her popularity. The deletion of this article would fail Wikipedia's well known speed of current articles and all because of short sightedness.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkdw (talk • contribs)
  • This alone does not make the subject any more notable, as it appears that these awards you speak of aren't very significant. By visiting the youtube profile and clicking these awards I can find many other channels that have these awards, most of which don't have Wikipedia articles on them. The reasons for this are all above in my and other users comments.--Andeh 15:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but how many of these other "channels" have been behind the scenes on the set of various motion pictures (box office hits such as Crank). I would consider her views alone (over 3 million hits collectively), more than any other channel on the site--AlexHiggins 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It says on my screen Channel Views: 465,522. And personally knowing a celebrity doesn't make a person any more notable.--Andeh 18:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "The use of internet content now has an informational value to the point of recognition by international law. It cannot be denied as an illegitimate source to a single case."

A MySpace page? A Yahoo profile? Some Internet sources do have notability, but not all.

There are just over a 100 unique hits for biostudentgirl when, in Google's words, "entries very similar" are excluded.

The majority of links are from YouTube itself and sites that mirror YouTube. Many are from sites that the videos have been cross-posted to by the subject of this article. A substantial proportion are signed comments biostudentgirl has made on other people's YouTube videos. A smaller proportion of hits come from her "official" site and some come from sites that simply rip YouTube's content.

There are no third party links discussing "biostudentgirl" as a separate phenomenon. There's no review material, no critiques, no independent discussion that's not attached to YouTube or cross-posted videos. There are no fan sites or discussion groups. In other words, even though there's (arguably) quantity, there's no quality.

The question here is not whether Internet notoriety makes one notable. The question is whether popularity on one web site automatically makes one notable. I'd suggest that it does not.

The argument that YouTube is "hot" right now is moot. Geocities was a big deal ten years ago - but no one would have argued then that a person with a popular Geocities page deserved listing. The same criteria must be used in this case. No one would argue now that any personal web page, whether it attracted 10,000 hits or 100,000 would make the subject notable. Coincidentally, those are the kinds of numbers (per video) we're looking at.

While ostensibly "popular" in YouTube terms, this subject matches none of the other criteria that have made other YouTube "celebrities" notable; sustained popularity, controversy, crossover to the mainstream media or external reporting.

Finally, this entry appears to be largely autobiographical. Autobiography that paints the subject in a flattering light and censors criticism. Really, it's little more than a vanity page.Soap On A Rope 19:23, 7 October 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.