401:. YouTube is no "particular event" but a distribution channel, just like TV. The ongoing shift of mainstream media from TV to online video indicates the importance of YouTube and online video in general. Hill has been one of the most popular content providers in late 2006 and 2007, and she was one of the initial 30 YouTube partners. Thus she certainly played an influential role in the early days of YouTube when it all started. In fact, she still plays an important role in the online video world since she is the
300:
probably should be included in the article). Kind of like saying the girl that played "Stephanie Tanner" is famous for one particular event just because she played on that TV show - what else has she done? That show (or this website) provides the context of her notability in and of itself. (Sorry, it's what my 4-year-old daughter is watching on TV right now ☺ ....).
295:
The
Partner status thing should certify notability. She has an exceptionally large presence on You-Tube, and it is verified by this offer. The reference to her Stickam account was also mentioned with her other activities. I just meant it as an easily referenceable example. As for the reflection
259:
She also has a continued presence outside You-Tube as evidenced by her StickAm channel and her real-life activities. The article may need some additional citations and some work, but the subject of
Caitlin Hill AKA "TheHill88" should be kept as encyclopedic based on her effect on / reflection of
299:
Not to mention, your argument for deletion is based on the idea that it was one particular event that she is "famous" (pseudo-famous?) for. It is an ongoing thing, not one particular event. Her popularity continues to grow, and she continues to do real-life activities that can be notable (and
296:
comment, it's pretty much just the way it is. I believe that this girl's videos are a representation of what most youth may believe. No citation available (it's my opinion, for pete's sake!☺), but there you have it. I'm not trying to be ornery or anything (sorry if it comes out that way)....
405:
of a New York based media company, exclusively focussing on online video content. And (no quotable source for this one) in order to work in the USA she received a 01 Performers Visa, which most likely makes her the first person ever to receive such a visa for being "famous" on the
136:. Most sources given only mention her name and when she has been the subject of a report, its only because of her YouTube videos. Again, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted"
253:
You-Tubers offered
Partner status should be reason enough to keep. On top of this fact, her continued subscribership ranks her among the top You-Tube channels. Look it up if you need citations - it's easy enough to check this information from
774:
You made that claim above and it simply isn't convincing. Both articles focus on Hill. Both articles consist of only material about
Caitlin or material providing background. There's more than enough coverage there to be significant coverage.
846:
all have passing mentions, crystal ball ref, and blogs. The discussed stories as discussed are secondary sources. the issue is notability and there isnt any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability.
860:"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
212:. Hill is notable one of YouTube's early superstars, and has a number of reliable sources to that effect. It's not just a single event, but rather, Hill was a notable figure for some time on the Internet.
853:
Yes, these additional sources don't cover her exclusively. But you can add them on top of the two exclusive sources. And I still don't understand your concerns regarding notability and significant coverage.
278:
You-Tubers offered
Partner status" is not enough for a keep, being on Stickam is hardly notable and she has had no effect on society. What's your point about her being a "reflection of young people today"?
528:
of significant coverage only half the article is about Hill. The
Courier Mail article again isnt significant coverage, its this lack of significant coverage in reliable sources thats the issue.
158:
125:
791:
The Age article doesnt focus in Hill it focus is
Youtube, and gives some information on Hill to establish her credentials to make comments on YouTube. 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
228:
A superstar? Really? I think you'll have to get a citation for that. I don't believe she "was a notable figure for some time on the
Internet". Another flash in the pan YouTuber.
186:
450:
599:
features a picture of
Caitlin Hill and has a word count ratio of 390 to 129 towards Hill. The 129 words not covering Hill are providing background information. The
346:
However, for the purposes of
Knowledge (XXG) notability, the guideline is that once notable, always notable. Notability is not lost with the passage of time.
827:
So there are a couple of sources where Hill is being mentioned, plus the two already discussed sources which are exclusively covering her story.
762:
yep there is two secondary sources possessing some quality but neither(even combined) provide significant coverage to assert notability.
438:
17:
314:
You say "She has an exceptionally large presence on You-Tube". This is not true. She is pretty much unknown on YouTube now and she
92:
87:
326:, she has done more film/tv work since being on the show that made her famous. Can't really compare someone who has been on an
96:
543:
these are the articles cited - I am puzzled, they may not be large articles but both appear to be specifically about Hill --
867:
596:
575:
327:
79:
260:
society. Like it or not, this girl IS a reflection of young people today, and for this article that should be kept....
462:
434:
387:
336:
318:
have had a large presence on the site when it first started but as of now, she has no large presence on there. You mean
285:
234:
198:
170:
142:
943:
36:
919:
Reasons: 1) All the solid arguments listed above. 2) She's hott. (That was fun! Back to my political bubble...)
377:
because she "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I can't find anything else that she meets on
330:
show to someone who had minor success on YouTube for a couple of home-made videos and hasn't moved on from that.
507:
The Age and Courier Mail references (1 each) would appear reliable secondary sources and are specific to her --
942:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
374:
822:
924:
457:
382:
331:
280:
229:
193:
165:
137:
863:
600:
558:
928:
891:
836:
784:
769:
757:
739:
727:
713:
687:
654:
626:
552:
535:
516:
495:
467:
421:
392:
355:
341:
309:
305:
290:
269:
265:
239:
221:
203:
175:
147:
61:
548:
512:
351:
217:
766:
736:
710:
651:
532:
492:
378:
920:
133:
780:
753:
723:
683:
83:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
748:. Two is multiple. So we have multiple independent reliable sources. Anything else is gravy.
887:
832:
622:
561:
430:
417:
301:
261:
871:
855:
675:
745:
637:
544:
508:
347:
213:
55:
817:
TV appearance, which can be found on several video sites, and a not yet aired segment on
477:
763:
733:
707:
648:
529:
489:
700:
606:
525:
485:
481:
818:
319:
776:
749:
719:
679:
402:
75:
67:
113:
862:
The last sentence of this definition says that exclusivity superseds triviality.
883:
828:
618:
582:
426:
413:
409:
879:
875:
810:
806:
732:
Ok so there is nothing else beyond two secondary sources to assert notability.
647:, there is no significant coverage in a reliable source to assert notability.
814:
50:
484:
independent source requirements, other sources are passing mentions so fails
408:
When it comes to offline activities, she will be appearing in the remake of
802:
870:
are both exclusive on Hill. And according to the footnote-example #1 in
674:
There appear to be sufficient reliable sources about her that she meets
565:
323:
705:
significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject
603:
also features a picture of Caitlin Hill and covers her exclusively.
936:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
586:
569:
249:. If nothing else, the fact that she was one of the handful of
636:
neither article is significant coverage both as highlighted by
803:
The Darfur Wall Introduces Advocates Program newswiretoday.com
578:
476:
source mainly from Youtube and blogs neither of which meet
807:"Top YouTube videographers descend on San Francisco" CNET
801:
There are other sources where Hill is being mentioned:
640:
120:
109:
105:
101:
488:
as being the subject of multiple independent sources.
811:
How to Win Friends and Influence YouTube flakmag.com
159:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
946:). No further edits should be made to this page.
524:the Age article deosnt meet the requirements of
609:, both sources should meet the requirements of
322:who played "Stephanie Tanner" and according to
187:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
699:where are the reliable sources that meet the
451:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
8:
132:No real notability of this person. I'd say
874:-"Significant coverage", her coverage in
576:"Caitlin raps her way to YouTube success"
449:: This debate has been included in the
185:: This debate has been included in the
157:: This debate has been included in the
882:and 60Minutes are arguably non-trivial.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
274:Being "one of the handful of
929:05:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
892:17:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
837:16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
813:. Additionally there is her
785:15:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
770:15:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
758:15:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
740:14:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
728:14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
718:See Sdddlt's remarks above.
714:03:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
688:00:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
655:14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
627:12:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
615:"independent of the subject"
553:11:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
536:03:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
517:23:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
496:02:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
468:04:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
422:02:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
393:02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
356:01:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
342:01:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
310:16:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
291:16:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
270:15:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
240:11:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
222:11:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
204:06:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
176:06:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
148:06:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
62:07:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
963:
645:reliable secondary sources
559:"Local talent goes global"
939:Please do not modify it.
744:Excuse me? Two sources.
32:Please do not modify it.
410:Plan 9 From Outer Space
611:"significant coverage"
403:chief creative officer
823:Blog of Angela Thomas
439:few or no other edits
601:courier mail article
441:outside this topic.
574:Hutcheon, Stephen
557:Swanwick, Tristan
459:TwentiethApril1986
384:TwentiethApril1986
333:TwentiethApril1986
282:TwentiethApril1986
231:TwentiethApril1986
195:TwentiethApril1986
167:TwentiethApril1986
139:TwentiethApril1986
44:The result was
470:
454:
442:
373:be notable under
206:
190:
178:
162:
954:
941:
562:The Courier Mail
465:
460:
455:
445:
424:
390:
385:
339:
334:
288:
283:
237:
232:
201:
196:
191:
181:
173:
168:
163:
153:
145:
140:
123:
117:
99:
58:
53:
34:
962:
961:
957:
956:
955:
953:
952:
951:
950:
944:deletion review
937:
703:requirement of
597:the Age article
464:(want to talk?)
463:
458:
389:(want to talk?)
388:
383:
338:(want to talk?)
337:
332:
287:(want to talk?)
286:
281:
236:(want to talk?)
235:
230:
200:(want to talk?)
199:
194:
172:(want to talk?)
171:
166:
144:(want to talk?)
143:
138:
119:
90:
74:
71:
56:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
960:
958:
949:
948:
932:
931:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
826:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
691:
690:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
604:
591:
590:
589:
572:
499:
498:
471:
443:
407:
375:WP:ENTERTAINER
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
297:
256:
255:
243:
242:
225:
224:
207:
179:
130:
129:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
959:
947:
945:
940:
934:
933:
930:
926:
922:
921:Ichormosquito
918:
915:
914:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
852:
849:
848:
845:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
834:
830:
824:
820:
819:Today_Tonight
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
797:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
782:
778:
773:
772:
771:
768:
765:
761:
760:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
742:
741:
738:
735:
731:
730:
729:
725:
721:
717:
716:
715:
712:
709:
706:
702:
698:
695:
694:
693:
692:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
670:
669:
656:
653:
650:
646:
642:
639:
635:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
605:According to
602:
598:
595:
592:
588:
584:
580:
579:theage.com.au
577:
573:
571:
567:
563:
560:
556:
555:
554:
550:
546:
542:
539:
538:
537:
534:
531:
527:
523:
520:
519:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
502:
501:
500:
497:
494:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
472:
469:
466:
461:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
423:
419:
415:
411:
404:
400:
397:
396:
395:
394:
391:
386:
380:
376:
372:
357:
353:
349:
345:
344:
343:
340:
335:
329:
325:
324:her IMDb page
321:
320:Jodie Sweetin
317:
313:
312:
311:
307:
303:
298:
294:
293:
292:
289:
284:
277:
273:
272:
271:
267:
263:
258:
257:
252:
248:
245:
244:
241:
238:
233:
227:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
205:
202:
197:
188:
184:
180:
177:
174:
169:
160:
156:
152:
151:
150:
149:
146:
141:
135:
127:
122:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
60:
59:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
938:
935:
916:
859:
850:
843:
798:
704:
696:
671:
644:
633:
614:
610:
593:
540:
521:
504:
473:
446:
398:
370:
368:
315:
275:
250:
246:
209:
182:
154:
131:
76:Caitlin Hill
68:Caitlin Hill
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
864:couriermail
583:September 4
437:) has made
302:NDCompuGeek
262:NDCompuGeek
815:60_minutes
638:Paul foord
545:Paul foord
509:Paul foord
482:verifiable
348:SchuminWeb
214:SchuminWeb
406:internet.
379:WP:PEOPLE
254:You-Tube.
851:Response
844:response
746:One, two
594:Response
522:Response
478:reliable
435:contribs
381:though.
276:original
251:original
134:WP:BLP1E
126:View log
880:Flakmag
799:Comment
777:JoshuaZ
750:JoshuaZ
720:JoshuaZ
697:Comment
680:JoshuaZ
634:comment
566:July 28
505:Comment
93:protect
88:history
884:Sdddlt
872:WP:GNG
868:theAge
856:WP:GNG
829:Sdddlt
676:WP:BIO
619:Sdddlt
474:Delete
427:Sdddlt
414:Sdddlt
121:delete
97:delete
821:(see
767:garra
737:garra
711:garra
652:garra
541:Query
533:garra
493:garra
371:might
124:) – (
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
925:talk
917:Keep
888:talk
876:CNET
866:and
833:talk
781:talk
764:Gnan
754:talk
734:Gnan
724:talk
708:Gnan
701:WP:N
684:talk
672:keep
649:Gnan
643:are
641:diff
623:talk
613:and
607:WP:N
587:2006
570:2007
549:talk
530:Gnan
526:WP:N
513:talk
490:Gnan
486:WP:N
447:Note
431:talk
418:talk
399:Keep
369:She
352:Talk
306:talk
266:talk
247:Keep
218:Talk
210:Keep
183:Note
155:Note
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
46:keep
480:or
456:--
453:.
328:ABC
316:may
192:--
189:.
164:--
161:.
57:Why
927:)
890:)
878:,
858::
835:)
809:,
805:,
783:)
756:)
726:)
686:)
678:.
625:)
617:.
585:,
581:,
568:,
564:,
551:)
515:)
433:•
425:—
420:)
412:.
354:)
308:)
268:)
220:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
52:So
48:.
923:(
886:(
831:(
825:)
779:(
752:(
722:(
682:(
621:(
547:(
511:(
429:(
416:(
350:(
304:(
264:(
216:(
128:)
118:(
116:)
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.