Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmalina (3rd nomination)

Add links
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, redirecting to Youtube. Deizio talk 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalina (3rd nomination)

[edit]

DELETE - PASSING FAD THAT SERVES NO IMPORTANCE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.18GB (talk • contribs) .

Previous AFDs here Yomanganitalk 18:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have split the history so that they are now at 1st 2nd. -Splash - tk 23:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'll just change to Neutral as I also did on the Crazy German kid AfD.--Húsönd 18:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: 4.18GB (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.*Delete - flash in the pan. Would you find this in Britannica? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.18GB (talk • contribs) 14:40, October 14, 2006

WP:BIO is not at stake here. The previous AfDs have already established that. (JROBBO 12:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
That's not a reason for deletion as already established by the Daniel Brandt controversy. (JROBBO 06:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
There is a list of notable YouTube users, which have established her as a notable YouTube user, and she has survived a deletion review twice. (JROBBO 06:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Excuse me? Being in a category is not justification for having an article kept. GassyGuy 06:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, bad English. My point is that this has already survived two deletion debates and there hasn't been any real change in circumstances warranting a third. Secondly, there are plenty of other YouTube users with their own articles who were less notable than this user, but whose articles are still regarded as notable. I really don't think this is a reason. (JROBBO 06:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
By that logic, every politician should be deleted once they retire. WP is not just about the present, you know. You can't argue this. (JROBBO 06:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Not really analogous. In the real world, politics are central to the workings of the nation. Politicians played key roles in something very important, so they are notable and worthy of encyclopaedic reference; in contrast youtube is... well... a website, and not exactly central to the world. Being involved with youtube is hardly being a government official. GassyGuy 06:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point still remains - just because you stop doing something that you achieved notable coverage for doesn't mean that you automatically become non-notable. In any case, there is enough precedent on WP to make this sort of argument unfounded. (JROBBO 06:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Perhaps, but, the point is, just getting press coverage isn't the same as establishing notability in the first place. I, too, have gotten press coverage, but good luck finding my article, which also doesn't belong here. The point being made is that, if having some press coverage is all that can be said to support keeping the article, it is unlikely to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. I'll also note that the presence of even less worthy articles does not justify the keeping of this one. GassyGuy 06:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP is not just about the present, but it is also not an indiscriminate collection. She got a little press for being momentaraly popular on a website. Big deal. By your logic, anybody who receives any press is automatically notable. Right down to every minor criminal who is locally newsworthy. Nobody is going to remember this girl in six months, let alone 100 years. Resolute 14:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it does give notability to the prominence of internet memes on YouTube. Perhaps some (but not all) of this information would be better served on a "Notable YouTube memes" page which is there to establish YouTube memes that have made significant coverage in particular countries. That would make this page defunct but the new article would serve YouTube's notability and not Emmalina's. (JROBBO 04:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong keep if not Speedy keep - Wikipedia is not just about what is fashionable. Emmalina received significant coverage in Australia, probably almost as much as lonelygirl15 in the US. Whilst that doesn't make her extremely notable in itself, it certainly does point that way. I ask the person that started this - what makes this not notable now compared to other AfDs? You must remember that Wikipedia is not just about what is present, even if it is not a static encyclopaedia. Other YouTube users are arguably less notable than Emmalina was, and yet we still keep their articles. This is a pointless vote by an unsigned troll and the request by the subject does not equal deletion. It should be kept. I would, however, support a merge to a Notable YouTube users page if that were suggested. (JROBBO 06:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Finally, someone nominated this crap again. I don't know whether the subject of an article is allowed to vote for it's removal, but I don't particularly care. I don't want it here. Doesn't the fact that it's been nominated three times tell you something? 124.177.40.147 06:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject wishing deletion to take place is not a reason for deletion, as already established by the Angela Beesley and Daniel Brandt issues. But to protect their interest, perhaps someone can get this article protected to stop unsigned users from adding incorrect and libelous information? (JROBBO 06:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Meh, no one said that WAS the reason for deletion. The reason is that I'm entirely unnotable. 124.177.40.147 08:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true - you gained significant media attention. That establishes some notability at least. Anyway, her notability has already been established here and doesn't need going over again. Why doesn't someone stop this discussion? It is pointless going over the same debate again for no reason. (JROBBO 12:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
What!? Three news articles in the "Tech" section of online news sites counts as "significant media attention" these days? One of which was a follow-up article, and the other written without my consent? You have to be kidding me. I'm NOT a public figure nor do I want to be. Oh, and why "stop the discussion" when at this point over half of the voters agree that it requires deletion? 124.177.40.147 07:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fadcruft. Her fifteen minutes of fame are over. Lankiveil 07:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per Agent86. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep news coverage establishes notability per WP:BIO. Hbdragon88 06:28, 16 October 2006
  • Delete. A bunch of video views on Youtube over a few months doesn't make a person notable. The "press coverage" consists of a few little fluff articles in the "Web" or "Tech" section that are of no real significance. Do we really need an article for every person who was popular on Youtube at a certain point in time? WarpstarRider 09:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with redirect to YouTube - I've changed my mind - the user's notability are better established under the YouTube page or a subset thereof, not in their own article. There's no question of their notability, however. WP:BIO is more than established, and there are FAR more than 3 articles around. I can do a Factiva list of articles if people would like. (JROBBO 10:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Delete "The basis of the previous keep votes seems to be the press coverage. Press coverage =/= notability, and vice versa." Quoted for emphasis. (And I was the second person to nominate this article for deletion. It has no place in wikipedia.) subliminalis 10:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because repeatedly nominating an article for deletion bothers me. The first one was keep, so, ok. The second was no consensus because people said the subject didn't want the article, but that's no reason at all. That sets the bar to keep. SchmuckyTheCat 16:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep Even if she weren't notable for her time as a youtube personality, I feel that the harassment she received afterwards is notable. Something that future youtube personalities may want to think about before showing themselves to the world. I'm sad that this is against Emmalina's wishes though. Andjam 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting hacked makes you notable now? A whole lot of my acquaintances are now worthy of articles. GassyGuy 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have any of them received newspaper coverage of their harassment? Andjam 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some have received coverage via incident reports in papers, but does coverage in a newspaper automatically make a person notable? GassyGuy 02:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What else exactly would you use a measuring stick? Notable people--even if notable for a time--get in the press. Notable once, they merit inclusion. · XP · 03:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I'm saying that, while not having any press coverage at all may be grounds for deletion, having some isn't automatic grounds for inclusion. Do you really think everyone who has an article in the special interest sections of newspapers should be included here? This is a basic summary of what happened: She had some videos on Youtube that people watched. She got hacked. It got a bit of coverage in minor newspaper sections. The end. It's not really the sort of thing that belongs in an encyclopaedia. Press coverage might make it a borderline case, but really, there's little to push her over into celebrity status. Think of it this way - every paedophile who gets caught and convicted by Perverted-Justice.com will have people on the web reading their story and also get newspaper coverage of the conviction. Does that establish encyclopaedic notability? (Note: I apologize to Emmalina for using the example of criminals in comparison to her, if she is reading this. I do not mean to imply that she has done anything at all to be held in a negative light. It was just the only other case I could think of that involved extensive website coverage and minor newspaper coverage.) Anyway, I think I'm rambling, so I'll quit trying to explain myself and let the AfD carry on its normal course. GassyGuy 07:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a local paper, or a specialised website, maybe not, but if you read about it in a paper on the other side of the world? Andjam 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is focussed on events that happened on the Internet. You know, the World Wide Web. It's not surprising or special in the slightest that it was covered (by what, ONE media company?) in a country other than my own. EmmalinaL 05:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I heard of him" is not a very convincing argument toward notability when the subject is female. GassyGuy 04:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emmalina_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1142192708"