Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Schwartz

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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Schwartz

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

Seems singularly non notable, plus, an unsourced biography of a living person. Various user IDs keep reverting tags/redirects hence bringing to deletion discussion. Mabalu (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, there is coverage: [1] from The New York Times (a brief rundown of up-and-coming YouTube talent), [2] from The Daily Dot (about a parody video she made), [3] from TheWrap (announcement of an original Yahoo! show hosted by her), [4] from Ad Age (very brief mention of another show), and [5] from The Wrap again (anti-bullying stuff). It's not a whole lot, but I think this is probably enough to write a credible but small article. If these SPAs continue to add unsourced biographical details and rumors about her personal life, however, it's likely the article will need to be semi-protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I partially rewrote the article to remove the unsourced personal details and add sources. It makes a little bit more of a claim to notability now than it did before, though it's still kind of a skimpy article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect again as it once was to Shane Dawson as the listed coverage above is something....but still questionable so this can be moved for now until then. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 25 January 2016

(UTC)

Keep As reliable sources have been added to the article I believe the subject passes WP:GNG although not a major celebrity.. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think this is a work in progress. As for the redirect, I think it's inappropriate to redirect to Shane Dawson, as the two broke up. --Benimation (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2016 (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.