Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Chamberlain

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Snow keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Chamberlain[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Emma Chamberlain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if person is notable enough and article has many issues including promotional content and unsourced contend and a short lead section Abote2 (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I worry that this AfD will be plagued with vandalism in a similar way to the article. However, I believe that this article should be kept per WP:GNG. A previous version of the article can be viewed here that has no unsourced or promotional content. The sources in the article, along with many that can be found with a Google News search, show notability. If you think the lead is too short, I suggest you WP:FIXIT. MarkZusab (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:BASIC with significant secondary RS coverage. Subject is clearly notable with multiple awards. Article has been cleaned up and more content added. It also now has an expanded lede. Subject easily meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Just count Special:WhatLinksHere/Emma_Chamberlain, and I'm far from sure that I've wikilinked all plain text occurrences of the name. A complete AfD for what is in essence one bogus Social Blade reference makes no sense, just remove this bad reference and whatever it is supporting. The Sixteen other references are okay, and the living person is meanwhile 18 years old. For "not sure" check out WP:BEFORE, this is enwiki, absolutely everything has an essay, a guideline, or a policy. –84.46.52.65 (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets WP:BASIC. Problems describes are endemic to WP pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - This is pretty much WP:PROMO. The coverage is trivial and despite its quantity there is a complete absence of depth; this is reflected in the page's contents. Claims such as the itunes podcast one are unsupported and seemingly promotional in nature (please advise which 50 countries). I looked at several of the articles which allegedly link back to this one and could not find any such links. Perhaps I misunderstand exactly what the 'whatlinkshere' function does but maybe someone can explain. Perhaps this is better suited for wikinews. It is not encyclopedic. There is not a single sentence in the article that is. ogenstein (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think here it might be useful to have a detailed analysis of the sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is coverage that satisfies WP:GNG, and the promotional material has been removed recently. wumbolo ^^^ 12:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can you please advise exactly which coverage satisfies GNG? I'm really not seeing any reliable sources for this. Thanks. Adding signing. ogenstein (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I guess I do not understand your statement, "I'm really not seeing any reliable sources for this." They are referenced in the subject's article. Here are five: Forbes, Seventeen magazine, People magazine, The Michigan Daily newspaper and DEADLINE - all third-party, reliable sources. You might try looking again. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of those qualify as reliable sources. A reliable source has integrity, fact checking, editorial oversight, etc…. 'Human interest news reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting.' A Forbes contributor is not a reliable source. Please see the WP:RSP. Especially one whose stated purpose is to promote youtube. What fact checking was done in the Seventeen or People articles? They are just rumours regurgitated. Those magazines exist to promote stuff. WP:QUESTIONABLE, in addition to rejecting sources without fact checking or editorial oversight, also advises against 'sources expressing views that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumours and personal opinions.' As for Michigan Daily, you do realise that it is a student newspaper, don't you? And look at the 'quote' used from it. Does that really belong in an encyclopedia? In what way does that seem to be independent or reliable (other than reliably fawning and slavish)? The Deadline piece is just a press release over a non-significant award. WP:NEWSORG advises that republished press releases are 'churnalism' and should not be treated differently from the release.
For all these examples, please consider WP:NEWSORG again which states that editorial commentary and opinion pieces are 'rarely reliable as statements of fact.' Also, 'Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.' WP:SOURCE: Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
I'll add two more concerns as well: WP:HITS specifies that undue weight should not be given to matters related to popular culture, 'popularity is not notability'. And that some subjects, "…May be on 700 pages and might still not be considered 'existing' enough to show any notability, for Wikipedia's purposes." WP:GOOGLECHECK advises that lots of hits do not… "Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, and that it isn't due to marketing, reposting as an internet meme, spamming, or self-promotion, rather than importance." Given that Google has an inherent interest in promoting youtube, this is doubly a concern.
All of these citations should be removed from the page (along with all of the inappropriate content). The reality is that while this subject may be popular, she is not notable. This is proven by the quality of additions to the page. If the subject was notable, it would be comparatively easy to write the article. People who wish to read celebrity gossip can do so at some of the sites you've mentioned but it's not suitable material for an encyclopedia. People can think that WP:ILIKEIT means that an article is a legitimate keep but it doesn't actually mean that. ogenstein (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Seventeen is a national, reputable magazine published by the Hearst Corporation beginning in 1944. National magazines are heavily fact-checked within the mag's editorial process and writers and reporters working or contributing to it are journalists and part of traditional media. I suggest you look up the editorial practices of traditional publications. People, published by the Meredith Corporation since 1974, has the same practices in place. These are not tabloids. They are mainstream publications. Saying differently does not make it so. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You do realise that the term 'yellow journalism' was first coined for a Hearst paper, don't you? The Seventeen article gossips about a teenager's private life. Is that the act of a reputable publication? The People article quotes the Forbes contributor article. And consider their article's headline about the podcast. Where is the fact-checking? It's not even mentioned in the actual article. This article is pure sensationalism. Even if you believe that the publications are reliable, you still have to look at the individual pieces and the context. These are opinion pieces. They don't get fact checking. This is one site repeating what another site wrote. NB I'm obviously commenting a lot on this page and it's not actually my intent to bludgeon so I'll leave room for others to comment. Regards, ogenstein (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -@Bbb23:I know this user:Mothman. He is using multiple account. He is a new user. He writing wrong Policy information all of afD negative comments also he don’t know which article eligible for notable or not. Please check this user. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.35.115 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is another case of an internet celebrity who clearly deserves an article per WP:ENT (it would be hard to argue that 7.9 million subscribers isn't a "large fan base"), but who hasn't been covered extensively in traditional media. In this case, I believe there's just enough coverage that the subject passes GNG (Forbes, People), although more sources are needed for verifiability purposes. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Excepting the handful of times I forgotten, I always sign my posts with the same signature that I've always had, which seems to meet WP:CUSTOMSIG. If I'm missing something, please advise. Is ~two !votes per day a lot or improper? It is a small fraction of the AfDs. I research before voting.
The Michigan Daily is the only paper with a daily print run but is not the sole source of news in the city and is not likely the paper of record. Putting aside that it's a student paper, even if you wish to consider it a generally reliable source (which is typically not the case for a local paper when determining notability), when examing the context of the cited article, it does not qualify. Just read the quote that's cited. Forbes has two separate entries in the perennials list and if you read the relevant one you'll see that contributors are explicitly identified as non-RS. People is a celebrity gossip magazine. Seventeen is celebrity gossip with a youth twist. Elle is celebrity gossip with a fashion twist. And putting aside the journals themselves, all of these articles are sensationalist opinion — WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The Seventeen article for example, before reporting that the subject is obsessed with coffee, shares speculation on her dating life. Did Elle do fact-checking when the writer claimed that the subject doesn't have a wikipedia page? That's the second sentence of the article. For all we know, the author used the Michigan piece as her 'source'. Please read the articles? ogenstein (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -@Bbb23:I know this user:Mothman. He is using multiple account. He is a new user. He writing wrong Policy information all of afD negative comments also he don’t know which article eligible for notable or not. Please check this user. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.35.115 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like WP:SNOW Lubbad85 (☎) 14:57, 5 June 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emma_Chamberlain&oldid=900866387"