443:'s criteria for reputable sources. Blogs, Forums, and personal websites do not count. The 'popularity' on YouTube does not count. The Notable YouTube users page was designed because the community concensus was that individual users were not to be on the main YouTube page. Individual articles were created but even the links were not allowed as an edit war arrose from it. Finally, I stepped in and suggested merging all the YouTube users that had articles into one article. That merger was opposed. So, we had related articles but no way to link them. I finally found a compromise between the two sides and made this article/catagory. One link from the main article was ok'ed by the exclusion crowd to a page that listed all the notable users, the inclusion crowd wanted to make sure that this was just a list of people with Wiki Articles only. There stipulation was that 1) A person must have a wikipedia article 2)A person's article must pass all WP rules including
596:
YouTube 3)The page is only there to link users that have pages here at WP so what is the difference between this and a
Catagory? A catagory would make it easier for people to traverse between each userpage as well and make things neater. It would also end these kind of arguements that "'XXXX' deserves mention because they are notable on YouTube."... Now, 'XXXX' needs to have an article before being included in the catagory and if they have an article, it can be debated in a consenus of editors if the article truely stands up to WP's standards. Thoughts? --
456:
the fire. LG15 failed the AFD and because of that her page was removed. Since she no longer has a page, she no longer is listed on the
Notable YouTube users list. While quite a few people do look for her on here, I think a link from her name to the Notables list is a mixed blessing. It shows people that some 'Tubers' are notable but then it brings up the question 'well why isn't xxxxx on this list', and some anon decides to add them, then is bent out of shape when their entry is removed. I'd go with
472:
times, but it's a rare day indeed when the NY Times can write about something and that isn't deemed sufficient to settle the matter. You keep talking about these policies, WP:V, WP;OR, but she obviously passes all of them, since the content is all easily verifiable just through the link I posted above to a set of articles about her. It leaves me thoroughly baffled. Furthermore, a YouTube user with roughly equivalent notability,
495:
will pass AfD, though I personally believe he shouldn't as the article is a word-for-word repeat in all the newspapers and even read as the TV BBS news script. I personally believe is constitutes a single source but what do I know...and really that is neither here nor there. I have gotten off topic.
455:
etc. 3) A person must derive their notability exclusively from YouTube 4)the page/list was not to take the place of individual pages (sneaky merger) but to satisfy the rules, each listing had to include the media coverage that person received. I had the thankless (but somewhat fun) job of dancing in
595:
This may be something to bring up, but I am actually looking into creating a subcatagory (Users) or (Notable users) under the YouTube parent catagory. The reasoning is this: 1)Obviously the users are notable or they wouldn't pass WP's standards. 2)They are all famous or notable for their videos on
355:
of the sources are "reliable" in the sense that they confirm her notability. What do you want? Does she need to have a book published about her, or would that also not be sufficient? Look at the other people included on the list. Shouldn't we apply the same standard to
Lonelygirl as we've applied to
999:
Does harm by returning non-encyclopedic results for people searching for encyclopedia topics, and increases confusion for new users by blurring the line between the encyclopedia and wikipedia. While "redirects are cheap" that cost mounts up when a lage number of redirects are involved, and forcing
500:
with their press coverage. Bowiechick hasn't had and AfD but I believe it is because she was interviewed by the nationally broadcasted CBS nightly news. LG15's AfD happened after all these and it was decided she didn't pass. For your information, I DID vote keep on her, but later changed my mind.
389:
is in AfD right now because while he was mentioned in various articles, the all are a word for word repeat of each other...however he was mentioned on a BBS report. LG15 only has a blog from the NYTimesonline mention. Blogs are not acceptable per
Wikipeida's standards. Beyond that, all the others
119:
the redirect (and add info correspondingly) if an individual article cannot be accepted. If I had it my way she would have her own article; too many people have looked at this from the wrong angle (yes, anybody can post a video on YouTube, and no, that doesn't make just anybody notable—but that is
471:
All blogs are not created equal. This particular blog was written by a writer for the NY Times, Virginia
Heffernan, and is posted on the NY Times website. I've never encountered such a stringent requirement for notability before. I have battled it out on inclusion/deletion questions innumerable
576:
Do you mean force information about her on the page? Well, no, that would not happen since then we would have to allow ANYONE that has a YouTube account to post themselves there. Where would the cut off be? "You can be mentioned but you can't". The page is designed for only people that have
534:
from the YouTube article and then immediately reinstated it when I saw that he had a standalone article and viewed the sources there). Even a blog written by a NYT writer & posted at the NYT website is still a blog... this could certainly be debated either way, but I personally just don't
846:. It does no harm and it serves to reduce confusion among new users who are trying to find the templates but don't yet know the intricacies of our namespaces. It is clearly labeled as a Knowledge (XXG) page and can not be confused for an article. It meets bullets 3 and 5 of
191:
I didn't know we had rules about the notability of a subject over an extended period of time. I thought something could be notable for any length of time at all and get an article—notice how we get all those great articles on events and people just hours (even
171:
the redirect (and add info correpondingly) - see explaination above - I am gobsmacked that someone as notable as LG15 does not justify a single mention on
Knowledge (XXG) given the level of attention she is receiving across the internet. Please refer to
1000:
mirrors are to download non-encyclopedic content when all they want is the encyclopedia is not acceptable in my view in exchange for them "being useful" to a subset of editors who can used bookmarks/userpages to achieve the same goal. Regards,
656:
261:
So what kind of logic is that? It is denied an article because some people think it only deserves mention within the scope of a broader article, and now somebody is going to say it shouldn't be mentioned there because it
476:, is now passing AfD with a resounding majority. I'm thinking that something just went badly wrong in the original AfD and now it's getting a hard time here just because of some stigma associated with failing an AfD.
577:
articles about them on
Knowledge (XXG) already. It was designed to be a link between all the pages...YouTube's main article and all the users that have articles...not a page for anyone to drop their name on. --
181:
I conceed that the LG15 saga spans a short period of time and needs more time to be "noteable" by
Knowledge (XXG) rules. I propose deletion and revisit the LG15 if and when she gets more media coverage.
301:
and she was removed. The point still stands, this is a redirect to an article that has no information about the subject (and she should not be added unless someone can source that she meets
610:
This article was converted into a
Catagory so a redirect is pretty much pointless at this time. I would ask an admin to close this discussion as the debate is now basically a moot point. --
266:
have an individual article? This is ridiculous. I have to think
Lonelygirl is at least as notable as the people already included in this article, if attention and coverage are compared.
39:
34:
369:
passed an AfD because she has been mentioned twice by the Sydney Morning Herald (in the paper not just online), and twice by the Washington Post(in the paper..not just online).
555:- a redirect without a relevant target is useless and misleading. With no mention of her on the target page someone is going to type it in as a search and be rather confused -
655:
A misleading, incorrect (title mentions subjects of three separate articles, not just Colt) and absolutely redundant (who would type THAT in?) redirect resulting from an
91:
487:
The problem is not only was it a blog but the fact that all she had WAS the blog (and some other blogs, personal websites and a local newspaper) mentioned her.
1047:
1039:
342:... sorry, she falls well short for inclusion and as I've stated above, this redirect is a dead end if it leads somewhere that does not mention her.--
21:
381:, and various newspaper/tv news reports. BowieChick was interviewed on the CBS News Nightly Report, and was featured in The Guardian and by ZDNet.
876:
17:
758:
742:
702:
102:
page, the addition of Lonelygirl15 to the Notable YouTube users article has been rejected by those editing that article. That makes the
875:
which results in a disambig with a link to the target. As far as doing no harm, the pros & cons of cross-namespace are covered at
535:
consider a blog with no editorial oversight to be a very reliable source, nor is it a very good indication of "notability" in the
629:
1064:
385:
is an actor that has appeared in two movies as well as various newspaper articles for his dual role as an actor and YouTuber.
1060:
903:
Users searching for wikipedia templates come across this page and use the redirect service. It also meets bullets 3 and 5 of
145:
787:
496:
WP has standards. The consensus from the editors of WP is that Brookers and Emmalina both passed AfD because they passed
1099:
1086:
1078:
1004:
987:
971:
959:
941:
911:
895:
883:
859:
838:
821:
805:
770:
749:
728:
720:
681:
668:
651:
616:
602:
583:
571:
562:
543:
511:
480:
466:
412:
396:
360:
346:
326:
313:
270:
256:
230:
200:
186:
158:
154:
Maybe it wasn't published in the newspaper, but it was an article on their website written by one of their writers.
149:
124:
110:
82:
242:
per nom - nonnotable entity without an article which is what the article redirected to is, a list of youtube users
99:
783:
678:
567:
Well, I'd hope that a successful redirection vote would at least force the addition of the info to the page.
309:
at a later date (or a full article about her at the name space); right now this redirect is useless though.--
120:
irrelevant) without considering the really amazing level of attention she's gotten, including a NYT article.
298:
290:
58:
1021:
813:
725:
1017:
738:
698:
694:
491:
states multiple, Independent, Reliable, third-party sources. She doesn't meet it but the others have.
211:
is not a rule, policy, or guideline. It is an essay; it is quite useful as far as essays are concerned.
106:
redirect useless because it is pointing to an article that will not contain any information about her.--
904:
847:
1044:
968:
908:
322:. Take your pick. And by the way, she is the fourth most subscribed YouTube channel of all time now.
249:
1095:: We don't delete redirect simply because they are mispelled or unused. No harm in keeping this. --
937:
559:
226:
660:
390:
have multiple mentions from independent Third-Party Reliable Sources. LG15 does not have that. --
746:
141:
334:, All I see are blogs, trivial mentions, and short blurbs... nothing that comes even close to a
955:
855:
818:
810:
762:
664:
382:
77:
983:
difficult for them to learn it by confusing/entwining the name spaces from day one? Regards,
919:
891:
as a cross-namespace redirect. The article namespace should be reserved for articles only. --
677:. Useless from a search standpoint, but it exists to preserve the GDFL chain after a merge. -
208:
536:
523:
502:
497:
488:
444:
405:
339:
306:
302:
294:
286:
835:
633:
527:
452:
440:
436:
335:
282:
1036:
923:
880:
568:
556:
540:
477:
409:
370:
357:
343:
323:
310:
297:(and not the same old tired NYT blog post again). Someone already tried to add her to
267:
212:
197:
155:
121:
107:
448:
432:
279:
1106:
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
1054:
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
1011:
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
1001:
984:
777:
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
766:
688:
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
623:
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
531:
519:
492:
473:
386:
378:
373:
passed an AfD because she has been mentioned in many sources, including the magazine
137:
952:
851:
611:
597:
578:
506:
501:
There is no stigma here. She failed an AfD for a reason. Perhaps when she passes
461:
391:
293:, I would remove her for the same reason unless someone asserted a source that met
178:
103:
87:
70:
54:
809:
It is cross-namespace redirect from Main namespace to Knowledge (XXG) namespace.
183:
1096:
1030:
892:
832:
404:, Brian has it exactly right. All others listed at the redirect target meet
872:
798:
713:
644:
868:
366:
922:, a style guide, makes a good arguement for how this hurts the project.
1083:
1075:
530:
with articles written at Reuters, Guardian, et al (in fact I removed
374:
305:). I've no predjudice against a redirect in the future if she meets
319:
173:
460:
just because it has caused more trouble than it has been worth --
431:
I guess I will chime in here. EveryKing, the sources do not pass
907:
as quoted above. It also doesn't hurt wikipedia in having it. --
94:. Article was created as a redirect, but as can be seen at the
967:
Not everyone is geeky enough to know everything off the bat. --
132:
No, she didn't have her own NYT article. It was a blog post.
68:
early as its target was deleted and replaced by a category. —
95:
278:
Lonelygirl15's article was deleted per AfD because no
1074:(Now that I am refershing on policy Hetar is right)
1082:It is mispelled and unused :). (maybe a speedy?)
867:. New users are much more likely to search for
8:
827:And has no incoming links, so can be simply
630:NedCar BV: Mitsubishi Colt - smart Forfour
877:Knowledge (XXG):Cross-namespace redirects
18:Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion
285:were produced to demonstrate she met
7:
759:Scientific opinion on climate change
743:Scientific opinion on climate change
703:Scientific opinion on climate change
745:(as to avoid double redirects). --
28:
788:Knowledge (XXG):Template messages
90:was deleted per AfD consensus on
1065:Common criticisms of Windows XP
505:someone can contest the AfD. --
1061:Common critcisms of Windows XP
724:String of nonsense redirects--
1:
643:, attributions preserved. --
905:Avoid deleting redirects if:
848:Avoid deleting redirects if:
196:!) after notability occurs.
1100:04:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1087:23:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1079:06:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1070:The nominated redirect was
1049:06:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1048:_user_talk:demonblade": -->
1041:12:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1040:_user_talk:demonblade": -->
1027:The nominated redirect was
1005:23:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
988:23:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
972:16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
960:12:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
942:03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
912:21:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
896:04:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
884:00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
860:19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
839:14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
822:04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
806:13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
793:The nominated redirect was
771:16:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
750:14:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
737:, but change the target of
729:02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
721:13:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
708:The nominated redirect was
682:13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
669:15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
652:13:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
639:The nominated redirect was
617:19:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
603:18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
584:14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
572:11:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
563:10:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
544:13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
512:14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
481:03:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
467:19:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
413:01:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
397:19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
361:18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
347:15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
327:10:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
314:12:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
271:10:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
257:02:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
231:20:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
201:04:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
187:08:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
159:04:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
150:11:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
125:06:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
111:19:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
83:19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
64:The nominated redirect was
1122:
784:Knowledge (XXG) Templates
761:. It does makes sense. --
518:The sources provided for
741:so it links directly to
318:Look, sources are right
289:. If she were added to
338:and nothing that meets
951:learn the namespaces.
177:After discussing with
739:Global Warming Survey
699:Global warming survey
695:Global Warming Survey
299:Notable YouTube users
291:Notable YouTube users
59:Notable YouTube users
1022:user talk:demonblade
365:Well, let us look.
679:Hit bull, win steak
1018:User talk:zhanster
957:
858:
351:This is amazing.
74:
1113:
956:
933:
930:
927:
854:
816:
803:
718:
649:
641:Redirect deleted
614:
600:
581:
509:
464:
394:
283:reliable sources
255:
252:
222:
219:
216:
81:
72:
44:
33:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1068:
1057:
1025:
1014:
979:So why make it
940:
931:
928:
925:
814:
799:
791:
780:
714:
706:
691:
645:
637:
634:Mitsubishi Colt
626:
612:
598:
579:
522:more than meet
507:
462:
392:
336:reliable source
250:
247:
229:
220:
217:
214:
86:The article at
69:
62:
51:
46:
45:
42:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1119:
1117:
1103:
1102:
1069:
1067:
1058:
1026:
1024:
1015:
1008:
1007:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
946:
945:
944:
936:
898:
886:
862:
841:
831:without harm.
792:
790:
781:
774:
773:
757:redirected to
752:
726:172.147.153.86
707:
705:
692:
685:
684:
638:
636:
627:
620:
619:
605:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
516:
515:
514:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
371:Brooke Brodack
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
225:
165:
164:
163:
162:
161:
63:
61:
52:
50:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1118:
1108:
1107:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1085:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1066:
1062:
1059:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1032:
1023:
1019:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1006:
1003:
998:
995:
989:
986:
982:
978:
975:
974:
973:
970:
966:
963:
962:
961:
958:
954:
950:
947:
943:
939:
935:
934:
921:
918:
915:
914:
913:
910:
906:
902:
899:
897:
894:
890:
887:
885:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
863:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
842:
840:
837:
834:
830:
826:
825:
824:
823:
820:
817:
812:
807:
804:
802:
796:
789:
785:
782:
779:
778:
772:
769:
768:
764:
760:
756:
753:
751:
748:
747:Gray Porpoise
744:
740:
736:
733:
732:
731:
730:
727:
722:
719:
717:
711:
704:
700:
696:
693:
690:
689:
683:
680:
676:
673:
672:
671:
670:
666:
662:
658:
653:
650:
648:
642:
635:
631:
628:
625:
624:
618:
615:
609:
606:
604:
601:
594:
591:
585:
582:
575:
574:
573:
570:
566:
565:
564:
561:
558:
554:
551:
545:
542:
538:
533:
532:Geriatric1927
529:
525:
521:
520:Geriatric1927
517:
513:
510:
504:
499:
494:
493:Geriatric1927
490:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
479:
475:
474:Geriatric1927
470:
469:
468:
465:
459:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
414:
411:
407:
403:
400:
399:
398:
395:
388:
387:Geriatric1927
384:
380:
379:Rolling Stone
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
359:
354:
350:
349:
348:
345:
341:
337:
333:
330:
329:
328:
325:
321:
317:
316:
315:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
281:
277:
274:
273:
272:
269:
265:
260:
259:
258:
253:
245:
241:
238:
232:
228:
224:
223:
210:
207:
204:
203:
202:
199:
195:
190:
189:
188:
185:
180:
176:
174:
170:
166:
160:
157:
153:
152:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
128:
127:
126:
123:
118:
115:
114:
113:
112:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
84:
79:
75:
67:
60:
56:
53:
48:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1105:
1104:
1092:
1081:
1071:
1053:
1052:
1043:
1028:
1010:
1009:
996:
980:
976:
964:
948:
924:
916:
900:
888:
864:
843:
828:
808:
800:
794:
776:
775:
765:
754:
734:
723:
715:
709:
687:
686:
674:
654:
646:
640:
622:
621:
607:
592:
552:
457:
401:
352:
331:
275:
263:
243:
239:
213:
205:
193:
175:for details.
168:
167:
133:
129:
116:
104:Lonelygirl15
88:Lonelygirl15
85:
65:
55:Lonelygirl15
1029:Deleted by
1045:Demonblade
280:verifiable
209:Notability
92:August 9th
1037:JLaTondre
1033:(db-test)
881:JLaTondre
873:templates
801:Cyde Weys
716:Cyde Weys
647:Cyde Weys
569:Everyking
557:Peripitus
541:Isotope23
478:Everyking
410:Isotope23
358:Everyking
344:Isotope23
324:Everyking
311:Isotope23
268:Everyking
251:ΣcoPhreek
198:Everyking
156:Everyking
122:Everyking
108:Isotope23
49:10 August
40:August 11
1002:MartinRe
985:MartinRe
869:template
539:sense.--
383:Kwai Chi
367:Emmalina
246:articles
146:contribs
98:and the
35:August 9
20: |
1020:--: -->
977:Comment
965:Comment
953:Viridae
920:WP:SELF
917:Comment
852:Rossami
829:deleted
819:decimic
795:Deleted
661:Bravada
608:Comment
402:Comment
332:Comment
276:Comment
264:doesn't
206:Comment
194:minutes
179:Bschott
130:Comment
96:history
66:deleted
997:Delete
949:Delete
889:Delete
865:Delete
856:(talk)
593:UPDATE
560:(Talk)
553:Delete
537:WP:BIO
524:WP:BIO
503:WP:BIO
498:WP:BIO
489:WP:BIO
458:Delete
445:WP:BIO
406:WP:BIO
375:Vanity
356:them?
340:WP:BIO
307:WP:BIO
303:WP:BIO
295:WP:BIO
287:WP:BIO
240:Delete
184:Tibi08
1097:Hetar
1031:JoJan
893:Hetar
833:Kusma
613:Brian
599:Brian
580:Brian
528:WP:RS
508:Brian
463:Brian
453:WP:OR
441:WP:RS
437:WP:OR
393:Brian
43:: -->
16:<
1093:Keep
1072:Kept
1035:. --
981:more
929:Nate
901:Keep
879:. --
844:Keep
836:(討論)
811:real
755:Keep
735:Keep
710:Kept
675:Keep
665:talk
526:and
449:WP:V
433:WP:V
320:here
244:with
218:Nate
169:Keep
142:talk
138:user
117:Keep
100:talk
78:talk
71:Mets
32:<
969:Bob
938:(T)
926:Big
909:Bob
871:or
850:.
767:(t)
763:Zoz
657:AfD
408:.--
353:All
227:(T)
215:Big
73:501
22:Log
1084:RN
1076:RN
1063:→
932:37
797:--
786:→
712:--
701:→
697:→
667:-
663:,
659:.
632:→
451:,
447:,
439:or
435:,
377:,
221:37
148:)
144:•
140:•
134:~a
57:→
815:_
254:→
248:←
136:(
80:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.