467:, Yes a bunch of youtube videos does not mean you are notable. (Also the presence or absense of youtube videos does not mean you are not.) BUT millions of views and hundreds of thousands of likes and subscribers does mean notability IMHO. (Some TV shows had only a few million view ratings has huge cult following them (Firefly anyone?).) How do you define notability, and how much people do you want to piss off by deleting this or any other article? I think people who want to delete pages should post their home address so they can measure notability by the hate mail:) Deleting a page is really easy and destructive (when it's not offending anyone). Collecting all these information takes time and effort. It probably will improve with time if you let it. She is also not dead yet, so she can become more notable. There is already a large collection of information posted it would be such a waste to throw it out ( and later try to collect them back again). OK, I understand that we do not want to have 7 billion articles about living people. Still I do think she is notable enough. Based on wikipedia's guidelines: "person has created" "well-known work, or collective body of work": Define well-known, but her video's views suggest a lot of people know her work. "Has a large fan base": what is large? A million subscribers is large enough? I think it should be. --
545:, I agree that some content of the article needs either sourcing or should be removed if not sourced, but in general it's a better sourced and structured article than most of wikipedia's smaller articles are. Also, big youtube personalities (and if you like her/know her or not, she is one for a long time now) are part of our modern culture now and for that reason have to be included into an encyclopedia. Just because the IMDb page is "nearly blank" doesn't mean anything since IMDb doesn't cover much of youtube. There are also articles from Geekology, New York Post, PR Newswire and The Christian Post (again, like it or not, that doesn't matter). --
562:, It's about time Knowledge (XXG) starts giving recognition to web sites and web personnalities. Right now, if you have recorded an album on a big label that only 100 persons bought qualifies you as notable, while being known by millions just like her doesn't, simply because the notability factor isn't from traditional sources. The simple fact that most people on the web prefer consulting Knowledge (XXG) over any other media for information about anything should be reason enough to broaden the spectre of inclusion here.
337:: Whether heyhihello has a wiki article is irrelevant. One, just because they don't have an article does not mean they aren't notable. Two, notability is not conferred simply through association, but through reliable coverage of that association. Whether heyhihello is notable or not, the coverage of their collab with Violet is. Whether that source when combined with the others listed is enough to give an entire article on Violet notability, that is the issue at hand.--
238:
feature. I would consider two different news features significant. Both news articles also noted the popularity of her channel, which supports No. 2 of WP:BIO's criteria for entertainers - "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I'm not sure how notable the coverage by Ology.com is,
209:
seem to be the best sources available. In my opinion these do not meet the "significant coverage" portion of the guideline, and the remaining sources are not reliable and/or independent of the subject. I did not see anything better than what is already referenced in the article available online.
305:
Concur with nominator. A bunch of youtube videos does not confer notability or a large following. Plenty of people are on imdb with empty pages and has youtube videos with more views and are not notable. In the "sources" cited above, does the also mentioned random local band heyhihello has a
170:
368:
408:
228:: Yes, the article does lack sourcing, but I think that there is enough uncited coverage to warrant an article. I can't find the Forbes article you mentioned, but in the article itself there is the
388:
123:
164:
252:
522:
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
130:
275:. I'm actually surprised that she has not garnered more news coverage considering the popularity of her channel and the quantity of her work.--
244:
451:
264:
569:
322:
17:
96:
91:
100:
353:
291:
243:
article comes from a PR Firm, so that makes that one more questionable. Outside of those articles, here is what I found: A
185:
248:
83:
152:
597:
40:
524:
Which sources have you identified as significant in their coverage, reliable, and intellectually independent?
455:
146:
239:
but the content for that source is by the editorial staff, not a user. I did not realize initially that the
565:
310:
268:
573:
318:
142:
593:
577:
554:
533:
505:
476:
459:
442:
420:
400:
380:
359:
297:
219:
65:
36:
314:
501:
192:
178:
486:
550:
345:
283:
416:
396:
376:
87:
60:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
592:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
529:
215:
517:
202:
497:
158:
472:
438:
256:
546:
338:
276:
260:
230:
412:
392:
372:
79:
71:
54:
117:
525:
211:
516:
Reply to Szir - "How do you define notability...?" By the external criteria at
450:, Having multiple YouTube videos does not mean that you are an notable person.
489:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
468:
433:
205:. The nearly blank IMDB page, a mention in a Forbes article, and a bit on
431:, good deal of sourcing and secondary source coverage in references. —
247:
of her "Wizard Love" video with
Heyhihello in CantonRep.com, another
271:
to her in by the opinion editor for a reliable student newspaper,
586:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
369:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
409:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
113:
109:
105:
267:
of a tour she took part in on MLive.com. There's also
177:
496:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
191:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
600:). No further edits should be made to this page.
389:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
8:
407:Note: This debate has been included in the
387:Note: This debate has been included in the
367:Note: This debate has been included in the
201:The subject of this article appears to fail
406:
386:
366:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
251:of same video on Screencrave.com, a
24:
1:
617:
589:Please do not modify it.
578:14:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
555:21:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
534:02:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
506:23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
477:23:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
460:09:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
443:01:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
421:20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
401:20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
381:20:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
360:21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
298:16:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
220:04:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
66:04:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
306:wikipedia page? Nope.
236:Attack of the Show
207:Attack of the show
48:The result was
568:comment added by
508:
423:
403:
383:
327:
313:comment added by
255:of her work with
608:
591:
580:
495:
491:
356:
348:
341:
326:
307:
294:
286:
279:
234:article and the
196:
195:
181:
133:
121:
103:
34:
616:
615:
611:
610:
609:
607:
606:
605:
604:
598:deletion review
587:
563:
484:
358:
354:
346:
339:
308:
296:
292:
284:
277:
138:
129:
94:
78:
75:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
614:
612:
603:
602:
582:
581:
557:
539:
538:
537:
536:
511:
510:
509:
493:
492:
481:
480:
479:
462:
452:141.218.228.19
445:
425:
424:
404:
384:
364:
363:
362:
352:
329:
328:
300:
290:
257:Family Force 5
199:
198:
135:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
613:
601:
599:
595:
590:
584:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
561:
558:
556:
552:
548:
544:
541:
540:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:
513:
512:
507:
503:
499:
494:
490:
488:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
463:
461:
457:
453:
449:
446:
444:
440:
436:
435:
430:
427:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
405:
402:
398:
394:
390:
385:
382:
378:
374:
370:
365:
361:
357:
351:
350:
349:
342:
336:
333:
332:
331:
330:
324:
320:
316:
312:
304:
301:
299:
295:
289:
288:
287:
280:
274:
270:
266:
262:
261:Cross Rhythms
258:
254:
253:short mention
250:
246:
242:
237:
233:
232:
231:New York Post
227:
224:
223:
222:
221:
217:
213:
208:
204:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:Find sources:
136:
132:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
62:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
588:
585:
570:69.51.218.38
564:— Preceding
559:
542:
521:
485:
464:
447:
432:
428:
344:
343:
334:
315:71.226.33.28
309:— Preceding
302:
282:
281:
272:
265:announcement
240:
235:
229:
225:
206:
200:
188:
182:
174:
167:
161:
155:
149:
139:
126:
80:Tessa Violet
72:Tessa Violet
59:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
269:a reference
241:Breathecast
165:free images
498:Black Kite
594:talk page
413:• Gene93k
393:• Gene93k
373:• Gene93k
263:, and an
37:talk page
596:or in a
566:unsigned
547:ColdCase
487:Relisted
355:contribs
323:contribs
311:unsigned
293:contribs
124:View log
39:or in a
335:Comment
273:Gateway
249:mention
245:mention
171:WP refs
159:scholar
97:protect
92:history
55:postdlf
526:VQuakr
518:WP:BIO
448:Delete
303:Delete
212:VQuakr
203:WP:BIO
143:Google
101:delete
340:¿3fam
278:¿3fam
186:JSTOR
147:books
131:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
574:talk
560:Keep
551:talk
543:Keep
530:talk
502:talk
473:talk
469:Szir
465:Keep
456:talk
439:talk
434:Cirt
429:Keep
417:talk
397:talk
377:talk
347:ily6
319:talk
285:ily6
226:Keep
216:talk
179:FENS
153:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
61:talk
50:keep
259:in
193:TWL
122:– (
576:)
553:)
532:)
520::
504:)
475:)
458:)
441:)
419:)
411:.
399:)
391:.
379:)
371:.
325:)
321:•
218:)
173:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
52:.
572:(
549:(
528:(
500:(
471:(
454:(
437:(
415:(
395:(
375:(
317:(
214:(
197:)
189:·
183:·
175:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
145:(
137:(
134:)
127:·
120:)
82:(
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.