Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Pearl Davis

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. I'm persuaded both by the number of editors advocating Deletion and their arguments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Pearl Davis

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

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

Non-notable Scaleshombre (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, Internet, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hindustan Times is fine. this in the Evening Standard [1] via Yahoo, ES is semi-reliable source, so meh. We'd need one more good source. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has gained more recognition as an internet personality within the last 12 months [2] NinjaWeeb (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete* why does she have a page when there are more notable people in every field she participates in that lack one? 2607:FB91:1A40:5155:30F5:BE01:AED8:FC2F (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quickly looking over the sources, the cited coverage from News.com.au, Insider, Evening Standard, Hindustan Times and Jerusalem Post all seem to satisfy WP:GNG. The prose could definitely be beefed up significantly, but as long as there's enough info for a proper article I don't see a reason to delete. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All that coverage is really for one event, so I think she fails People_notable_for_only_one_event --FeldBum (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They've made Jewish Chronicle today[3] for singing songs on Youtube. Attention seeking for notoriety? EhsanQ ^(talk) 16:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as she's only notable for this one song/viral moment. --FeldBum (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles has plenty of mainstream sources to demonstrates notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To her credit she knows that putting out anti-semitic content gets her coverage and she gets notoriety. I guess by the strict letter of the law, the page deserves to stay but it should accurately reflect who she is. This isn't some game she's playing - she's playing with fire here and if anyone comes here, it should be clear to them that she's an anti-semitic troll. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. This brief bursts of coverage she is getting from the last few weeks is not enough to pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with comment There is some level of sourcing that helps notoriety and notability. The cited coverage is satisfactory, but it has not been a sustained level of notability and is more so for recent events. I feel that given some more time, the article could meet notability standards much more easily but unfortunately with how quickly the page was made and how quickly it was nominated for deletion, I'm not sure it will have time to meet those standards. Give the article some more time to be developed before deciding to delete is my opinion. Mannytool (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Major YouTubers (such as Deji, Austin McBroom, McJuggerNuggets, etc.) don’t even have pages yet. The rules for internet celebs are a bit unfair (since mainstream media rarely covers them), but she only got big late last year and isn’t a household name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:B80:7EC0:DD15:6A7:8B94:5A4F (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appearing increasingly in the mainstream media. Robert Brockway (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete This is an easy call. You have to do more that post a bunch of attention-seeking videos online to meeet WP:Notability standards. While she has a niche following, the only significant WP:RS coverage has been of her missteps and retracted offensive commentary. This doesn’t make her notable or worthy of a Wikipedia article. She may someday achieve the type of long-term notoriety required for an article, but just having a YouTube following doesn’t qualify and there are clear rules about these types of “celebrity” YouTubers that she does not meet. I vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable social media "influencer". I was just looking for stuff to expand the article, and there ain't a lot out there. Even her attention-seeking outbursts garner little coverage. This is Paul (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - lacking in adequate coverage atm, but I think that at the current rate of things, she may garner enough coverage to warrant an article in the future; I mean, she just got on Piers Morgan's show. — Knightoftheswords 01:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article can be expanded/improved upon later on just because she's not relevant now doesn't mean she won't be relevant later down the line. Rager7 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. The subject appears to have largely drawn the attention of unreliable and tabloid journalism. A large number of the sources also seem focused on the comparison to Andrew Tate and her song, which seems like a WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS situation. I think more time is needed to determine if coverage is WP:SUSTAINED. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Seems unlikely coverage would be sustained, unless she does something else dumb that attracts the attention of the tabloid media. This is Paul (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: This is Paul (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

@This is Paul: please do not !vote twice. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I thought because it had been relisted then it was a new discussion. Feel free to delete this thread. This is Paul (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is (Personal attack removed). This is (Personal attack removed) who actively attacks the rights of women. Does every (Personal attack removed) get a page now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C4A:7E7F:FDB4:61AF:11E:A509:FBFF (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Connor Behan (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most comments indicate she is not well-known even on socials. The song that put her into the public light was engagement bait. Unless she has any other notoriety, deletion seems fair.TRE (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FIFTEENMINUTES. Not everyone who utters hate speech on the internet is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and there is no reliable coverage of anything else this person has done in their entire life. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:51, 2 August 2023 (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.