Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Nolke

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 no consensus to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and no reason to expect further discussion to lead to such a result. Editors supporting keeping the article point to coverage of the subject in reliable sources which exceeds any claim to notability that might arise merely from having a YouTube video "go viral". BD2412 T 03:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Nolke

[edit]

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

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

Orphan article about a Canadian YouTuber who had a pandemic video go viral - article largely about that but includes a filmography that appears to comprise amateur videos and small roles; sources include blogs and IMDb. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC) — Wbcgqbvj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Wbcgqbv I’ve read WP:GNG and nothing explains why the subject is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Many reliable, secondary sources covered her (and not just her viral video.) I see no point on why you want this article deleted. Rasalghul1711 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you could add those multiple, reliable sources on the subject other than the viral video. As it stands, I think this fails notability. See also Wikipedia:Notability (web). Wbcgqbvj (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbcgqbvj I did add the multiple, reliable sources on the subject. Look at the citations. This does page does qualify for notability.Rasalghul1711 (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that I'm unsure about this one given that the subject has appeared in national U.S. and Canadian media plus has over 900k YouTube subscribers, but doesn't seem to strictly satisfy WP:GNG. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve explained it to your self. This is an article about a Youtuber with almost a million subscribers who has appeared in multiple news channels. If this does not satisfy WP:GNG then no article in Wikipedia about a Youtuber satisfies WP:GNG Rasalghul1711 (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Currently 13 links on the article: 4 to YouTube and Vimeo; 2 to IMDB; 2 to personal websites; 1 to subject's social media (plus two I removed); and two to news sites, one of which mentions an award while the other is entirely about a viral video. Not (yet) evidence of sustained coverage. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CREATIVE, she has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work and it has been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, e.g. CTV News (October 2020), Mclean's (September 2020), Fast Company (April 2020), HuffPost (April 2020). In addition, her work is discussed in a non-trivial manner by Wired (August 2020), and The Gazette (December 2020). Some of her other work, including a local award nomination, has been mentioned by CBC (July 2020), other work has been discussed in an interview with ET Canada (November 2020), and she was interviewed by KQED 2 in March 2021. Beccaynr (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC) And after further research, this May 2020 Fast Company review and this 2016 WaPo article supports her WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is almost all about a single video. In one piece you have linked, she is mentioned as the person behind the video - in passing, in an article about how to use your slow-cooker to have chicken ready for supper with little work. This is not the stuff of WP:GNG, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify, it is not a single video, but currently a five-part series released from April 2020 through April 2021, which may in part help explain why coverage has been WP:SUSTAINED, even though this is not required for WP:CREATIVE notability; it also seems to help explain why this is not WP:BLP1E, because not only was she not a low-profile individual before this (as demonstrated by the Washington Post article), she has also not been low-profile since the release of the first video in her Pandemic series, because she continued to produce videos that continued to receive coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources, which supports her WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr Exactly, while many of her interviews and articles are in the pretext of her viral video. They go in detail about her other works also. If you read the articles instead of just seeing the headline you can see she does qualify for WP:Notability Rasalghul1711 (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb You've selectively picked on an article from the citation section even though there are multiple articles primarily about her.
http://hilahcooking.com/hhh024-interview-with-julie-nolke-feeling-peckish/ , https://imakealiving.simplecast.com/episodes/creating-a-youtube-sensation-with-julie-nolke-_MKK3Ni4 , https://imakealiving.simplecast.com/episodes/creating-a-youtube-sensation-with-julie-nolke-_MKK3Ni4 , https://www.macleans.ca/culture/julie-nolke-explained-pandemic-past-self/
This is the stuff of WP:GNG. Best regards Rasalghul1711 (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Podcasts aren't reliable or notability-building sources, so neither "Hilah Cooking" nor "I Make a Living" are helping at all. Bearcat (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't the stuff of WP:GNG at all. GNG is absolutely not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who happens to surpass an arbitrary number" — it also tests the sources for their type, their depth and the context of what they're covering the person for, and does not just agnostically accept every possible "source" as contributing equally to the process of making a person notable.
    Podcasts and YouTube videos, for example, are not support for notability: a source has to be a real media outlet, not just any web content that exists. Q&A interviews, in which she's doing the speaking in the first person, are not support for notability: they can be used to support stray facts after a person has already cleared GNG on third-party analytical coverage, but not as prima facie support for getting her over GNG in the first place. Sources that briefly namecheck her existence in the process of not being substantively about her, such as a source that briefly alludes to her work in the process of being fundamentally a review of a film she had nothing to do with or a recipe for chicken, aren't support for notability. Minor local awards, like the "Toronto Sketchfest", are not automatic notability passes: "notable because award-nominated" goes to top-level national awards like the Canadian Screen Awards, the Emmys or the Oscars, not just every single award that exists on earth. IMDb and the self-published websites of people she's worked with, verifying that roles were had but not independently analyzing the significance of said roles, are not support for notability. And on and so forth: notability is not just automatically supported or built by just every web page that can be found to have her name present in it.
    And of the few sources left that actually survive all of those tests by being from real media outlets, written in the third person and substantively about her, all of them are covering her in the context of a single viral video — which just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has been shown to pass WP:NACTOR as of yet.
    GNG is not "as soon as a person can show n>2 examples of their name being mentioned on the web, they automatically pass GNG and are thus exempted from actually having to pass the defined notability criteria for their specific occupation" — it requires a lot more than that, and this isn't surmounting that higher bar. Bearcat (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been revised since I worked on it, including with questionable sources added and/or restored, which may make an assessment of notability more challenging. However, the coverage of her and her work in the Pandemic series has been sustained over the past year, including in this source recently added to the article: McCleans (March 2021), and she has more than trivial coverage of her work in 2016 in The Washington Post. Some of her other work has also been independently covered, as noted in sources I added in my comment above, including Fast Company and ET Canada, even though the WP:CREATIVE guideline does not require this to support notability for an article. I also think that coverage from Wired and the Gazette, as well as KQED, support her WP:BASIC notability because she seems to have become a point of reference within popular culture, which is more than a passing mention, and also supports notability per WP:CREATIVE because she is known for originating a significant new concept. Beccaynr (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC) As an update, I have revised the article again. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WaPo article ("Why you can now quit your job to make Snapchat videos") is about Tastemade and only briefly mentions the subject's work (about two-thirds of the way in) - not sure that counts as sustained. And as you mention, there's the other-stuff-exists argument. To be clear, I think the subject is a rising star, but per JackFromWisconsin, it's too soon. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, the 2016 WaPo coverage is far more than a trivial mention, and includes, e.g. "Fans ask Nolke for pictures on the street — an odd feeling for an acting-school graduate who struggled during auditions to land traditional roles. But now, she finds herself dealing with a new kind of stardom." Also, per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC) She also receives coverage in The Los Angeles Times in 2015, that is more limited but provides additional context. Beccaynr (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A claim of street recognition via the subject herself does not support notability, and neither does a couple of mentions several years ago followed by recent coverage about a viral video. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in our discussion at the Tastemade Talk page, The Washington Post has five paragraphs of coverage on the development of her career before and at Tastemade, the Los Angeles Times features her in its 3-paragraph lede, and Media in Canada, when reporting on a Tastemade expansion, includes information attributed to a Tastemade rep that only highlights a show that she and a co-star are in. This is sustained coverage from 2015 through 2019..., so from my view, WP:BASIC notability is supported by this coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Media in Canada is an obscure site aimed at the media industry, not the general public, and that 2019 article gives only a brief mention of the subject in the context of a Tastemade project. The other articles are too brief and too long ago so all in all there isn't the "sustained coverage" in my view. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 13:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep With the recent series of videos on the pandemic, and the previous Tastemade work, I do not think this can be discounted as WP:BLP1E. The sources are just barely there in my opinion, but I think it's good enough to support notability. And as an aside: it may be an unpopular opinion, but I think notoriety in podcasts and social media should not be ignored as sources; it's not the 1990s anymore and I don't go looking for the NY Times etc. to be the only source to tell me what's happening online. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is work as an extra supposed to go in a filmography list? That's how this one has been filled out. For example, I've watched Exquisite, which is freely available on Vimeo (NSFW!) and the subject, despite being credited as a named character, appears only in the background of one scene. Likewise, What We Do In The Shadows was work as an extra. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether credited roles should appear in the Filmography list sounds like a discussion for the article Talk page, where there are also questions posted about the tags you have added to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's valid to address it here as filmography entries contribute to notability. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let me explain. No, YouTube subscribers and views of her videos can never amount to enough evidence of notability. However, GNG states that she must be a subject of the sources and they must be reliable, secondary and multiple in nature. Multiple meaning that you cant have a dozen sources with basically the same story and count that is intellectually independent. The subject must have in-depth coverage but because Wikipedia is so vague on what "in-depth" means then we are left here squabbling amongst ourselves over our own personal opinion of that that term means. In taking the totality of everything surrounding this young woman and her brief and young career I believe there is enough here to pass GNG, but I hope she continues and gains additional recognition making her notability without question. Good nomination, Good discussion, Excellent points all-around. --ARoseWolf 14:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per reasons and reliable sources indicated above. Article is good enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it satisfies WP:CREATIVE, which appears intended for well-known or highly-influential people (i.e. "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors"; "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"; "work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work"; "won significant critical attention"). This clearly lets in e.g. a famous artist who originated a new movement - but a self-published viral video? No. Is it funny and interesting? Yes. But the idea involves the well-used idea of time-travel and a major current event, rather than being a significant new concept. We're all rooting for Julie but in my view it's too soon. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wbcgqbvj, Beccaynr's reasoning is spot on that the article is good enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. I have explained enough. And I won't reply to this post again. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 01:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Could it perhaps go on the Draft space until unambiguously notable? Wbcgqbvj (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a WP:BLP1E, nothing shown up to pass WP:NACTOR CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's had a feature article in Mclean's (Canadian newsmagazine), Huffington Post (before it shut down in Canada), KQED (a US public television station) and on CTV.ca (national network), all of which can be seen using GNews. Her videos were also listed by the CBC in a top ten year end list. Most of these have come in the last month (Mclean's), but it's been over the last 6 months or so). As a tv/film actress, she's had bit parts, but her youtube has gathered enough media attention in Canada to make her notable. She's also had some traction in French, even in Europe: https://www.femina.ch/temps-libre/loisirs/25-idees-pour-se-remonter-le-moral-en-ce-moment, and a few mentions about her youtube modern/future self video being an inspiration for French creators (use the French Google Canada website) to see more. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd argue she is also "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique", she's inspired French creators to emulate her present/future dialogue style in subsequent videos. Seems to pass the bar to me. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2021 (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/Julie_Nolke&oldid=1068865335"