Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Kay Akana

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Kay Akana

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

They don't necessarily meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, as most of the coverage is local. Also, this article is so promotional that WP:TNT seems like the only real solution. Note that most of the sources are from Youtube, which aren't reliable sources, and are primary sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Youtube postings authorized by the creator of the work are, like other self-published sources, reliable as sources about the creator. Moreover, they are reliable (albeit primary) sources about their own existence and content. They are probably also reliable for their metadata, such as number of views and rankings within Youtube. Those seem to be the sorts of things that they are being cited to support in this article, and would properly be used in any article about a noted producer of Youtube content. None of that proves notability here, of cpourse. But the article should not be deleted because of its use of cites to Youtube for things which are properly so cited. DES ^(talk) 20:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, what I said above is that it's a primary source, so doesn't show notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You also said that they "aren't reliable sources", which, in the context that they are being cited, is incorrect. You are quite correct that they are primary sources, and so it is to other sources that we must look for evidence of notability. DES ^(talk) 21:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is pure wikilawyering. Please cut it out. --89.0.241.110 (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Joseph2302 said "A and B". I objected to A, and gave my reasons. He responded with "But B is true" and I pointed out that my objection was only to the A part of the statement, while agreeing that B was true. More specifically, I agree that cites to Youtube and to Akana's web site are primary sources, and don't establish notability (although the metadata on the Youtube entries, showing number of views, is IMO relevant to notability. But I say that they are proper sources for the things for which they are cited, and their use should not cause people to react "Oh cited to Youtube. Delete!" If the independent secondary sources are sufficient to establish notability (as I believe that they are) then the presence of the Primary cites should be no problem. DES ^(talk) 23:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as Wikilawyering. What I said was ambiguous, and I meant what they said below- this discussion clarififed that I meant that. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the operative word here is "most": The vast majority of sources in the article are primary sources. These sources cannot establish the notability of the article subject, nor the relative importance of specific content within the article. --89.0.235.97 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added several citations. I now see (completely ignoring Youtube & IMDB cites and other primary sources) cites to GoodReads, Mochi Magazine, MyDaily, New Media Rockstars (multiple articles), The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, The Huffington Post (multiple articles), Metro, Bustle, and MTV. None of these are "local", and there are more sources out there. I also see mentions from reliable sources about casting Akana in 2 separate films. Granted neither of these has appeared yet, but published reports of this sort add to the notability of someone largely known for youtube videos. The large reported viewership (now confirmed by multiple sources) also indicates notability IMO. Most promotional content seems to have been removed, and any that remains can be removed by normal editing. i see no policy-based reason to delete at this time. DES ^(talk) 22:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources cover Akana herself in any significant detail as required by Wikipedia:Notability (people). Sorry, but she is simply not notable, and it is impossible to write more than a substub based on secondary sources such as they are available at the moment. --89.0.241.110 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia:Notability (people) mentions that a person may be notable for having made a "widely recognized contribution", or if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." We clearly have "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" here. It also says that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" This also applies here, when multiple independent reliable sources, and particularly national or international sources (such as The Hollywood Reporter, The Huffington Post, and MTV) have covered teh subject and her works at some length, even if no one of them has an in-depth profile. This is quite sufficient to count as notability on Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 23:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that an article need not be based wholly on secondary sources, as long as notability has been established, primary sources may be used to verify relevant content. Note further that Wikipedia articles about authors, film-makers, artists, singers, and other creative people often largely cover the body of their work, rather than being devoted to the artist him- or herself. This is such a case. Consider as an example C. J. Cherryh. DES ^(talk) 23:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is multiply sourced, and notability in a niche sphere is still notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Robert McClenon, there is coverage from multiple sources including Mochi Magazine, MyDaily, New Media Rockstars, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, The Huffington Post, Metro, Bustle, and MTV, and thereby this article subject crosses the threshold of notability WP:N Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - person is notable enough. --☣Anar chyte☣ 06:26, 28 May 2015 (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.