78:
574:- now shows coverage all over the shop, or to put it another way, 'mulitple non-trivial coverage' - from the likes of NY Times.com, Denver Post, Media Village to name the biggest three (follow link to see more) .... Dare i suggest that perhaps some of these voters might not have had a good enough look at this one? hmmmm.......
641:. She was noted in the New York Times, and is wildly popular on YouTube. I would suggest a major re-write of the page to Wiki Standards and also to create a reference link to not only the NYT's article but some of the other media she has been mentioned in. I'll offer to do this if we have a keep concensus. --
942:
No I'm not an attorney. And I'm overwhelmed by some of those words, please try and descibe it in layman's terms. And care to determine what makes it agree with wp:bio. Just because this person has appeared on a notable website, isn't really very high. For instance my cousin who I have descibed at the
926:
I refuse to be baited into making predictions on issues not before us now, specifically, the likely notability of "every
Youtube uploader" and whether they deserve their own article, a redirect page, or neither. As far as where "to draw the line", those issues should be decided on a case by case
774:
Another comment - the article has now been substantially cleaned up, and has had a whole bunch of productive editors contribute (though not to this vote... hmmmm....) I think the clear concensus here to delete is pretty self-evidently wrong, and would invite all voters to take another look at the
917:
argument. Nicely done. Are you an attorney as well or do you just debate like one? My fully articulated position, your mischaracterization aside, is that while the subject of this article does not appear to be sufficiently notable to have her own article, it would be appropriate under the
151:
On speedy, bt fiercely contested. The bottom line is that this person is nn and just someone who has posted some videos on YouTube. To put this to the point, my cousin has released 6 videos, so does that warrant her own article? No. Neither should this person.
277:- not convinced that a YouTube viewing statistic is a good starting point for notability. There's also (at least in the Bio criteria) a requirement for "multiple non-trivial coverage" and one appearance on the nytimes site does not multiple coverage make.
1054:
Is this article a fun, informative, appropriate article for wikipedia, or another annoying geeky disctraction from the serious task of collecting knowledge? - I guess that's up to you Mr. Closing Admin...... (ps - go on, keep it!) - thanks folks! -
173:, and a well-written nomination (as opposed to just plonking down a bullet point and some lame bold text and pretending you've done your duty) has been scientifically proven to make you more attractive to the sex of your choice.
388:
which appeared as a small picture and link on the main page of the nytimes.com website for a day or less than a day. Also much mainstream news content is not encyclopedically notable and much is also not even news. Like this.
679:- Perhaps a complete re-write of this page with more detail and properly sectioned off areas with headings would be excellent. A merge though, would that make it so that it is linked, like the others are, on the
601:
Comment - BraDRoBBo writes:- Why delete it? It's informative nonetheless, and i was actually searching for this on
Knowledge (XXG) and found it, it does not SAY she is fake, just says that some people believe
590:
in my book). I would call them all "trivial" coverage or coverage from non-reliable sources. I still don't see evidence of multiple non-trivial mention in reliable sources and that is the problem here.--
683:
page? It should have a page of its own, as there is so much that can be written about this girl, whether you like her or not - but hopefully not from a biased point of view as to whether it is staged or
571:
Comment - as the only 'keep' voter, its obvious that you guys should delete the article - Just thought i'd mention that a quick google - and as perfectly highlighted on her site -
952:
Fair enough. I suppose since I did admit that the article subject was not notable enough for its own article, it does seem a little silly to
Redirect to an article entitled
429:
nn. Couldn;t find the NY times article, according to above she was mentioned in a blog post. Whhen she gets and article written about her, then she is notable (see
752:, you can rewrite it if this article survives AfD, but it doesn't matter. It's not a formatting or style issue here, it is the fact that she meets none of the
384:
as per nom and per
Starblind and BigHaz. Nonnotable youtube camgirl. Subject was not mentioned "on the front page" of NYTimes. Was mentioned in an NYTimes.com
976:
314:
356:
1019:
She has achieved a bizarre level of notability in a short time. The article needs improvement however. She is no less notable than the other
904:
So you're telling me that every
Youtube uploader can have a redirect page? Even the two people mentioned above? Where do you draw the line?
700:
618:
125:
988:
510:
17:
796:
and I'd say most of it (like her MySpace) should removed as self-promotional links that add nothing to an encyclopedic article.--
667:
207:
242:
nytimes.com and 700,000+ views = notable! This is actually fairly straightforward! (but then i did write the article.....!)
956:
YouTube Users. I have withdrawn an earlier comment and stricken the above opinion. Apologies to all for my verbosity. --
99:
to establish a consensus amongst
Knowledge (XXG) editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have
1076:
104:
36:
1047:
Is YouTube a notable website - concensus over the wiki says Yes, my opinion, Yes - others above seem to be saying No.
466:
165:
I wouldn't have let you speedy it, either. Whatever the merits of an article on this young lady, it is clearly
1075:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
931:. The intrinsic value of any precedence that may or may not be established here is another matter entirely. --
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
696:
614:
984:
554:
534:
178:
1020:
887:
809:
688:
680:
651:
606:
629:- While I dislike LG15, we do have a precident of notablility set by other Notable YouTube users, such as
505:
1059:
1027:
1003:
960:
947:
935:
908:
896:
871:
843:
816:
800:
779:
764:
728:
692:
671:
645:
610:
594:
578:
566:
518:
469:
453:
441:
421:
405:
393:
376:
364:
336:
305:
281:
269:
246:
229:
211:
182:
156:
60:
980:
1044:
Does
Lonelygirl15's 'notability' meet the Guidelines therefore? - my opinion, Yes - others above, No.
1041:
Does
Lonelygirl15's coverage constitute 'multiple non-trivial'? - my opinion, Yes - others above, No.
254:- may have been on the front page but the newspaper website report . Does not seem to pass any of the
53:
559:
549:
539:
529:
840:
266:
91:
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that
372:
per nom - Times mention is hardly notable and if she ever does become famous she can be re-added.
100:
663:
203:
174:
57:
49:
1000:
944:
905:
864:
725:
482:
437:
153:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
478:
401:, Starblind, BigHaz, and Bwithh all summed up nicely the problems I have with this article.--
108:
226:
928:
789:
753:
462:
259:
255:
115:
1056:
957:
932:
893:
776:
575:
373:
243:
793:
757:
587:
792:
guidelines though... that is the issue here. The new external links section is all non-
1050:
Is
Lonelygirl15 'famous' on YouTube - pretty obviously yes - we all agree on this one!
914:
829:
797:
761:
634:
591:
430:
402:
349:
318:
263:
77:
659:
450:
418:
348:, hardly constitutes a claim to actual notability, any more than does being blogged.
302:
199:
973:
Keep! - Why does it matter wether its real or fake it is a real story in any case!
1024:
857:
642:
434:
129:
66:
775:
article and the story now and I reckon you'll probably agree.... maybe! - cheers,
449:
as per nom. or should we repeal WP :VAIN and start each doing our vanity pages? --
813:
390:
278:
194:- What are you talking about? I don't see anything wrong with the nomination.
638:
345:
760:
and non-trivial coverage that those opining keep are failing to mention.--
630:
290:
852:
824:. What makes internet folks think that they become notable so easily?
650:
The articles you reference are in the process of getting merged into
107:
are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or
756:
guidelines. A rewrite won't change that unless you are aware of
1069:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
572:
943:
top has appeared on the front page of a nn website as well.
724:
User's only edits are to this page, possible vote stacking.
999:
User's only edit is to this page, possible vote stacking.
586:, All the pieces are brief blurbs or blogs (which are not
225:
per nom. Dime a dozen amateur video actress. Not notable.
413:
Reference in a nytimes blog does not remotely count as
114:You can participate and give your opinion. Please
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1079:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1023:. If those articles are OK, this should be too.
169:a speedy. By the bye, please remember that AfD
546:22:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC) No change in vote
8:
1038:Hopefully a summation may be useful.....
118:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
477:per everyone and close up this AfD per
927:basis using the criteria set forth in
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
415:multiple non-trivial published works
344:The article the author refers to,
24:
654:. Are you suggesting a merge?
76:
851:. If not, at least redirect to
461:per nom. Not-notable and fails
1:
128:can be tagged using {{subst:
103:to help us decide this, and
238:, obviously. Front page of
124:Comments made by suspected
1096:
1060:06:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1028:01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1004:21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
961:02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
948:21:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
936:20:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
909:19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
897:18:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
872:07:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
844:07:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
817:03:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
801:01:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
780:00:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
765:01:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
729:21:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
672:22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
646:21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
595:11:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
579:04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
567:04:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
519:17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
470:16:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
454:16:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
442:14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
422:13:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
406:12:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
394:12:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
377:11:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
365:10:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
337:10:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
306:09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
282:09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
270:09:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
247:09:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
230:08:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
212:14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
183:13:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
157:08:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
61:08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
788:, she still doesn't meet
1072:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
126:single purpose accounts
101:policies and guidelines
315:219 unique Google hits
1034:(yet another) Comment
1021:Notable YouTube users
979:comment was added by
888:Notable YouTube Users
810:notable YouTube users
681:Notable_YouTube_Users
652:Notable_YouTube_Users
924:that already exists!
467:Scorpiondollprincess
241:
105:deletion decisions
93:this is not a vote
992:
918:circumstances to
869:
705:
691:comment added by
623:
609:comment added by
439:
313:YouTube poster.
239:
144:
143:
139:
1087:
1074:
974:
862:
838:
828:
794:reliable sources
758:reliable sources
704:
685:
622:
603:
588:reliable sources
565:
562:
557:
552:
545:
542:
537:
532:
517:
502:
501:
498:
495:
492:
489:
486:
438:
362:
334:
331:
328:
325:
299:
296:
293:
123:
80:
73:
72:
34:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1077:deletion review
1070:
1036:
975:—The preceding
867:
830:
826:
686:
604:
560:
555:
550:
547:
540:
535:
530:
527:
515:
504:
499:
496:
493:
490:
487:
484:
483:
361:
353:
332:
329:
326:
323:
297:
294:
291:
289:per nominator.
145:
116:sign your posts
95:, but rather a
89:
70:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1093:
1091:
1082:
1081:
1064:
1053:
1035:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
994:
993:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
939:
938:
922:to an article
915:slippery slope
875:
874:
863:
846:
819:
803:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
635:Brooke Brodack
624:
599:
598:
597:
569:
521:
511:
472:
456:
444:
431:Brooke Brodack
424:
408:
396:
379:
367:
355:
339:
319:Andrew Lenahan
308:
284:
272:
249:
240:New York Times
232:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
186:
185:
160:
159:
142:
141:
122:
120:Happy editing!
85:
83:
81:
71:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1092:
1080:
1078:
1073:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1051:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1039:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1011:
1010:
1005:
1002:
998:
997:
996:
995:
990:
986:
982:
978:
972:
971:
962:
959:
955:
951:
950:
949:
946:
941:
940:
937:
934:
930:
925:
921:
916:
912:
911:
910:
907:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
895:
891:
889:
885:
881:
873:
866:
860:
859:
854:
850:
847:
845:
842:
841:
839:
837:
833:
823:
820:
818:
815:
811:
807:
804:
802:
799:
795:
791:
787:
784:
783:
782:
781:
778:
766:
763:
759:
755:
751:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
730:
727:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
702:
698:
694:
693:172.143.78.79
690:
682:
678:
675:
674:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
648:
647:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
625:
620:
616:
612:
611:172.143.78.79
608:
600:
596:
593:
589:
585:
582:
581:
580:
577:
573:
570:
568:
563:
558:
553:
543:
538:
533:
525:
522:
520:
516:
514:
509:
506:
503:
480:
476:
473:
471:
468:
464:
460:
457:
455:
452:
448:
445:
443:
440:
436:
432:
428:
425:
423:
420:
416:
412:
409:
407:
404:
400:
397:
395:
392:
387:
383:
380:
378:
375:
371:
368:
366:
360:
359:
351:
347:
343:
340:
338:
335:
320:
316:
312:
309:
307:
304:
300:
288:
285:
283:
280:
276:
273:
271:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
250:
248:
245:
237:
233:
231:
228:
224:
221:
220:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
190:
189:
188:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
171:is not a vote
168:
164:
163:
162:
161:
158:
155:
150:
147:
146:
140:
137:
133:
132:
127:
121:
117:
112:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
88:
84:
82:
79:
75:
74:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
56:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1071:
1068:
1063:
1052:
1049:
1046:
1043:
1040:
1037:
1016:
1015:or possibly
1012:
1001:J.J.Sagnella
981:75.8.211.237
953:
945:J.J.Sagnella
923:
919:
906:J.J.Sagnella
883:
879:
877:
876:
856:
848:
835:
831:
825:
821:
805:
785:
773:
749:
726:J.J.Sagnella
687:— Preceding
677:Keep/Comment
676:
655:
626:
605:— Preceding
583:
523:
512:
507:
474:
458:
446:
426:
414:
410:
398:
385:
381:
369:
357:
341:
322:
310:
286:
274:
251:
235:
234:um.. well -
222:
195:
191:
179:befuddle me!
170:
166:
154:J.J.Sagnella
148:
135:
130:
119:
113:
96:
92:
90:
86:
67:Lonelygirl15
52:
45:
43:
31:
28:
627:STRONG KEEP
262:criteria -
227:Ohconfucius
1057:Petesmiles
958:Satori Son
933:Satori Son
894:Satori Son
777:Petesmiles
639:BowieChick
576:Petesmiles
374:Mark Grant
358:review me!
244:Petesmiles
175:fuddlemark
97:discussion
87:ATTENTION!
50:Mailer Dia
1017:Weak keep
882:with and
798:Isotope23
762:Isotope23
592:Isotope23
526:per nom.
403:Isotope23
386:blog post
350:RandyWang
264:Peripitus
989:contribs
977:unsigned
920:Redirect
913:Ah, the
890:article.
884:Redirect
806:Redirect
701:contribs
689:unsigned
668:contribs
631:Emmalina
619:contribs
607:unsigned
513:contribs
451:Svartalf
419:Fan-1967
208:contribs
136:username
1025:Siradia
954:Notable
858:Brazucs
853:YouTube
786:Comment
750:Comment
643:Bschott
584:Comment
479:WP:SNOW
435:Viridae
192:Comment
929:WP:BIO
849:Delete
822:Delete
814:Ixfd64
790:WP:BIO
754:WP:BIO
637:, and
561:Phreek
541:Phreek
524:Delete
475:Delete
463:WP:BIO
459:Delete
447:Delete
427:Delete
411:Delete
399:Delete
391:Bwithh
382:Delete
370:Delete
342:Delete
311:Delete
287:Delete
279:BigHaz
275:Delete
267:(Talk)
260:WP:BIO
256:WP:WEB
252:Delete
223:Delete
149:Delete
46:delete
880:Merge
836:THING
602:this.
109:socks
16:<
1013:Keep
985:talk
865:TALK
855:. --
827:—♦♦
812:. --
697:talk
684:not.
664:talk
660:user
615:talk
481:. —
346:here
303:Talk
236:Keep
204:talk
200:user
48:. -
991:) .
886:to
808:to
330:bli
258:or
167:not
138:}}.
131:spa
111:).
987:•
892:--
870:)
868:|
834:ʘʘ
703:)
699:•
670:)
666:•
662:•
656:~a
633:,
621:)
617:•
551:Σc
531:Σc
497:ar
494:ik
491:Sh
488:rk
485:Da
465:.
433:)
417:.
363:)
333:nd
327:ar
324:St
321:-
317:.
301:|
210:)
206:•
202:•
196:~a
181:)
58:lo
983:(
878:*
861:(
832:S
695:(
658:(
613:(
564:→
556:o
548:←
544:→
536:o
528:←
508:/
500:i
354:/
352:(
298:P
295:I
292:J
198:(
177:(
134:|
54:b
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
