Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GloZell Green

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 delete. A tough one: as a BLP and as a supposed entertainment-related discussion, the policies do need to be clearly gone through as opposed to !vote. Looking at (the very poor) references, I have to conclude that the person does not meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT based on what has been provided, and even what I can find in journalism databases. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GloZell Green

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
GloZell Green (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)

A "YouTube personality". Her main claim to fame is her Cinnamon challenge where she attempts to eat cinnamon and not much else (This could be considered a WP:ONEEVENT case). It is one of thousands of such videos and sources just have a sentence about her. Refs in the article come from the Univ. of Florida student newspaper (an alum), an interview with the Univ. of Kansas student newspaper and the Dartmouth newspaper. Unable to find any reliable and independent references that go into detail about her. Bgwhite (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 22:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets notability guidelines through coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Till 11:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is a puff piece based on mentions that make her "has appeared in things and has been mentioned on other things." So Elijah Wood mentions her blog on a TV show--that's great. That she's listed in a Wikipedia list is likewise not a reason to presume her of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have searched for sources, but nothing I can find amounts to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so WP's notability guidelines are not met. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everything is correct and she is a very famous youtube star. --Zannabanna (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything being correct is only half the battle. You also have to show that's she's "notable", not just "famous". There have been lots of "You Tube personalities" and "Myspace bands" with large fan bases who have had articles deleted here because they have little or no coverage outside those communities. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only thing I found on google news aside from repeats of a blurb about her and Jay Leno was this. However, there are several sources listed in the references that appear to be "significant coverage". While yes they are college newspapers, they are college newspapers from different parts of the country. This shows that she has been "taken note of". However, I won't bold "keep" since I don't think there is a consensus for this view. If she's not technically notable now, I think it's likely she will be later. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet criteria as WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT. The sources given (and those readily available in a web search) are either interviews (WP:PRIMARY), only mention the subject in passing, or are non-critical capsule reviews. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would a "non-critical Capsule review" automatically not count toward "notability"? I'm also not too crazy about this whole idea of interviews not counting either. In my view it would depend on who's doing the interviewing and whether or not its publication is subject to editorial peer review. What we should be trying to determine in this discussion, and in any AFD discussion where notability is at issue, is whether or not the subject has been "taken note of", not that every WP:N "I" has been dotted and every "T" crossed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Ron Ritzman: Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Reliable_sources specifically excludes capsule reviews as "trivial coverage", and not a significant source for determining notability. WP:PRIMARY excludes interviews in some contexts - when the interview is being used as a source that does not require any original research, it might be usable. In this case, we would be using the existence of the interview to determine notability - which would be original research on our part. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about capsule reviews but I have to disagree with you about using an interview as a basis for making a notability argument. WP:NOR says The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This does not apply to making a meta decision on whether or not an article should exist. If someone was interviewed by Barbara Walters or the interview appeared in Time Magazine, that would make a very strong case for notability. Not so much if the subject were interviewed by some random blogger. It's just like determining whether or not a news story on the a subject counts toward notability. Was the subject interviewed by a notable reporter and was the interview published by a reputable news organization with editorial oversight? I haven't looked at the interview in question here, I'm just making a general point. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see and agree with your point on OR. It does then require us to examine the context of the interview though. Is every person interviewed by Barbara Walters notable by only that criteria? How about every person interviewed by Oprah? Or Martha Quinn? At some point, we would need to draw the line based on editorial review and/or impact of the interview. In the case of this article, the interviews are all for University level student newspapers. I believe we can agree that while not random blogs, they are also not likely to confer notability. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It appears that this person and article have no value on Wikipedia unless we include every unknown person who has ever been mentioned on a talk show.keystoneridin! (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • She has received significant coverage in reliable sources. To say that 'this person and article have no value on Wikipedia' is entirely subjective and not what we are talking about. Till 03:01, 17 June 2012 (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/GloZell_Green&oldid=1146532921"