Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liza Koshy (actress)

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Koshy (actress)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Liza Koshy (actress) (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)

This article subject is not notable. An article about this subject has been deleted about nine different times under various names, the last being in April 2017. See here: [1] The article includes various unreliable references including IMDB, facebook, instagram, famous birthdays, bustle and youtube. It is said she will be on two shows starting in October 2017. (In the future) Those two items look to be the main additions to the last deleted article, plus one minor web award. Antonioatrylia (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Antonioatrylia (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Since the last deletion discussion, Koshy
    • Continues her starring role in season 2 of the Hulu original TV series Freakish, after the series' award-winning success last year. Season 2 will be released in October 2017.
    • She recently received a recurring MTV hosting gig on the series reboot of Total Request Live.
    • Appeared as a recurring character in season 2 of the web series Escape the Night.
    • She played a role in the feature film Boo! A Madea Halloween, among other film appearances.
    • Her main YouTube channel is one of the most popular YouTube channels (also one of the fastest-growing in history), with more than 11 million subscribers to date, and even her 2nd YouTube channel is extremely popular, approaching 5 million.
    • Her Instagram following is also fast-growing, with over 13 million subscribers to date.
    • Her social media penetration is approximately 45 million followers across all platforms.
  • A Google News search shows 8,320 results, including articles by The Los Angeles Times, Variety, Entertainment Weekly, Teen Vogue and The Hollywood Reporter, among other entertainment industry news sources. These WP:RSs are now referenced appropriately in the article, *and* the article has been re-written for encyclopedic tone and is better organized than when it was previously deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info: At Liza Koshy is a deleted article about her, with 349 edits, dated from 23:11, 14 February 2016 to 11:00, 25 April 2017. It has been deleted several times, and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liza Koshy; but Talk:Liza Koshy says "This person now has sufficient notability due to TV acting and hosting appearances and is, in addition, one of the fastest-rising social media personalities, with social media penetration of more than 30 million followers. All of this can be referenced by WP:RSs. Would an admin please unfreeze the page? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)". Liza Koshy (actress)'s history starts at 19:32, 6 January 2017, so the two pages are WP:Parallel histories and so cannot be completely history-merged. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: not sure why several entertainment press mentions and starring in a Hulu show is considered non-notable. The article is certainly as fleshed out as some for minor Canadian actors I've seen and no one is trying to delete those, so this feels like a bias against people who started on YouTube or social media. I'd be the first to jump in line to say "delete" if this person was only present in that medium and solely a self-promoter but that is obviously not the case here. She has held widely-recognized show business-related jobs that are documented by reliable sources. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG (articles in Variety and Hollywood Reporter are a good pointer), as well as broader media. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the acting and hosting credits shown in her article, as well as her unusually fast-growing social media interest and her web acting awards, I think she is clearly notable. Jack1956 (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, for all the reasons stated above. Somambulant1 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I strongly urge Antonioatrylia to reconsider this nomination. My reasons for reinstating this article are plainly detailed on the talk page for Talk:Liza_Koshy_(actress)#History_and_notability and I will excerpt them here now for ease of use.
  • A prior article at Liza Koshy was nominated for deletion on 16 April 2017, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liza Koshy. Other than the nominator, it received two "delete" !votes, and one comment favoring a keep. The AfD was closed and the article was deleted on April 24. Five attempts at recreation in the 24 hours after deletion were summarily deleted.
  • Previous to April 2017, I can see that this article was deleted by admins 5 times in October 2016. Also, Elizabeth Koshy (actress) was deleted twice in October 2016. And Liza Koshy (entertainer) was deleted three times in April 2017 and three times in January 2017. (Note: ALL deletions except for the poorly attended AFD in April 2017 were without discussion -- and nominator's suggestion that the multiple deletions show some strong consensus is disingenuous)
  • I have reviewed this person's covera ge as of September 2017. I do not have access to the prior deleted content. I became aware of this article due to the fact that Hank Green tweeted today that he had worked on it. [2].
  • Since the last deletion in April 2017, Koshy has been named the host of a major MTV show [3] and won a teen choice award [4] among much other coverage. I think there is no doubt she is notable at this point, no matter what she was before. She probably was close to notability before, this reminds me of when I had to prove The Annoying Orange had become quite notable despite past deletions.
  • An additional comment- the youtube views for this person are quite amazing. Once again I see a case where mainstream press coverage was delayed compared to actual popularity among teenagers -- the same story of youth culture trends since the Beatles, really. This is why the article kept getting recreated by less experienced editors; they assumed she was notable without having a firm grasp of our notability requirements.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment One question Milowent. Why did you not publish the AFC draft for Liza Koshy in the usual manner and AFC process? Was there a problem with so many of her likely titles having been salted by admins? Instead uou just bypassed the AFC processes and unilaterally moved the draft into article space. It had been rejected by numerous editors since April 2017. I did read over the deleted article back in April. The two main additions to the current article are about her being named as the host of TRL. The source states sMTV's TRL reboot will bow Oct. 2 and feature multiple hosts including rapper-comedian DC Young Fly, Chicago radio host Erik Zachary, DJ-actress Amy Pham, TV personality Lawrence Jackson and writer-producer Tamara Dhia. Multiple hosts. The show has not yet even begun to air. The second it is a minor web award. Also, I note here there is some quick participation here, likely due to the canvassing and cross posting of this AFD at multiple editor pages, article talk pages as well as notices at appropriate WP project pages. I ask that any closing administrator will take the canvassing under consideration. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AFC is sometimes baloney, though it is a good thing for newbie editors sometimes. I have written hundreds of articles over the past 10 years and never had one deleted that I am aware of. I saw this subject was plainly notable when a friend on twitter posted about it; i also saw that the prior draft had been substantially rewritten and that bureaucracy creep had overtaken things. So I was WP:BOLD and thought the chance of an AfD was only 50/50 and that you were probably the only editor that would bring one if it happened. If you are right that the subject is not notable, consensus will go that way, and the closing administrator will judge all !votes on their merits, not numbers.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Please tell me this AFD is a joke ? ... If not then as per the above - Thousands of sources on Google establishing notability so meets GNG. –Davey2010Talk 14:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The statement above by Milowent, nominator's suggestion that the multiple deletions show some strong consensus is disingenuous is untrue. My exact words were An article about this subject has been deleted about nine different times under various names, the last being in April 2017. I made no suggestion of a strong consensus at any time. That untrue statement needs to be stricken. Antonioatrylia (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a court of law. We don't "strike" things. Your references to multiple past deletions of the article suggests that there is some prior strong consensus for deletion, instead of just a ton of speedy deletions and one poorly-attended AfD in April 2017. Let's just judge the article on its merits. The good thing is that this AfD will likely end the debate either way.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment People do commonly strike things out of their postings. I have seen it done many times. What you posted is not true, yet you do it again. I stand by my nomination. I would rather see a poorly attended AFD than one with many canvassed participants. Antonioatrylia (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Antonioatrylia, given that the article's talk page already showed the efforts of two experienced editors to revive the article, it is outrageous that you nominated the article for speedy deletion. Your bringing this AfD, while I must assume it is in good faith, is frankly puzzling. This one is not even close to the line, if you would stop and look at it rationally. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donald1659, No-one is relying solely on YouTube subscribers, but the GNG met by coverage in Variety, Hollywood Reporter, the LA Times, Deadline and Entertainment Weekly. Her career outside YouTube is as notable as the one on the channel. I'm not a fan of YouTube stars and I've previously voted to delete those that are only visible in that medium, but this is a bit different. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the above, the extensive coverage in reliable sources and the industry recognition, I agree that this article should be kept. UWS Guy (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course I am sure you all know that for GNG to be met the subject needs to receive significant coverage in references deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards. Many of the multitude of sources here certainly do not have significant coverage of Liza Koshy. For instance, look at the 4 or 5 references listed in Variety. A reliable source no doubt. One article is a list of finalists for the upcoming Shorty awards. Koshy has a brief mention with her name once on a list of finalists. Second is an article about the show Freakish. Article is about the show not LK. She has brief mention explaining her role the show. Thirdly there is another article about YouTube red. Several different people have brief mention including LK in the piece. Fourth is one with a review of Freakish again with only a brief mention of LK. Fifth is another list from the Teen Choice awards where a brief mention of LK in a category of nominees and a winner of a minor award. That is just Variety. Most of the other references are brief mentions. This subject does not pass WP:GNG. Did everyone here that kept parrotting passes GNG passes GNG actually read through and check each of the plentiful references? I did. Some editors who may not have, should really do so now, and be really well informed. You may shocked by what you find. Donald1659 (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I did, and I'm sure many (most? all?) others did too. Please WP:AGF about what others have done in regard to their decision making process. Several smaller references to a person build up incrementally to the point an individual passes GNG. We have a case here where the several references all build up to a position of passing GNG through those many, many references. Yes, she passes GNG not by virtue of being a YouTube presence, but that and her acting career too. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I only asked a question. I made no accusations. I always show AGF. Please direct me to the policy you speak of that says it is OK to have mostly brief mentions if there are quite a few. No significant coverage needed? I would really like to read over that part of the policy if you have time to put a link. Thanks. Donald1659 (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald1659: see WP:BASIC. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is misleading is to change your posting here after it was replied to. And for the purpose of casting an aspersion at me by adding in "What Donald writes above is substantially misleading".
You need to comment on content not the contributors.
Something else that is quite misleading is the ongoing reference padding with brief mentions, names on lists and announcements and PR propaganda in order to attempt to make a subject appear to have notabilty when there is none. This article is beginning to be quite suspect and borders on promotionalism. Perhaps there is a problem with COI here. Who knows? Donald1659 (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im really, really struggling to parse "I always show AGF" with accusations of COI editing. I think, to quote something else you've written, you should "comment on content not the contributors". Personal attacks, even against an unnamed suspects, have no place in this discussion.
I'm also struggling to comprehend how all those articles about Koshy from reliable sources, many of which are about her, rather than just passing references, do not add up to GNG. Never mind, there are enough people who agree that's the sources weigh up to GNG, that we need drag thatquestion out no longer. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made no accusations nor any personal attack. I was just putting up ideas for discussion. BTW, we're you able to find a link to the "tons of brief mentions leaves no need for significant coverage" policy? Donald1659 (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've made a sear against people who have worked on the article, which is very poor. Please do not quote things people have never said. If you want to use quote marks, quote the actual text. If you want to make things up, don't dress it up as a quote - it is something else misleading. I'm going to drop out of this now, there is littlesmileyone point in discussing your questionable approach, and when nearly everyone else also sees the GNG, I'm happy that my judgement that this passes the threshold is in line with others. - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Make things up huh? Verbatim with a diff. [5] Still no link for the pretend policy? I thought not! Donald1659 (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eerrrmmm... Sure you got the right link there? It certainly does not link to the "tons of brief mentions leaves no need for significant coverage" you claim I have written. Please try to be honest when dealing with other people. (And to cover your much repeated point about sources, when there are several references that back up more heavy-weight references (as is obviously the case here) GNG is obviously satisfied. Do youreally need a link for that? - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have not ever seen an idiomatic phrase contained in quotes. I never said I was quoting you. You made a mistake with your understanding. I am always honest. Take your own advice. Donald1659 (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Balls. Quote marks are for quotes, not for things you like to make up. If you wish to 'loosely translate' something into a misleading statement, don't disguise it as a quote, use 'single quote marks', and make it clear you are not quoting. - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so now you admit there is no policy like that. I was wondering why you are so hostile, so I took a look at your block log. Five or six blocks for varied harassment, personal attacks, and even sock puppets. You are still well skilled in the personal attack department. I understand now. Good morning. Donald1659 (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again... "You need to comment on content not the contributors". I'm really not sure what my block log has to do with you being unable to understand the measure of GNG, but your passive-aggressive approach really is rather distasteful - (particularly as within your sub-450 edits, you've got no idea on how to 'read' such a log: once you've been here a little while and actually find out what you're talking about, you'll see how many of those were closed quickly because the admin erred in judgement (not that is anything to do with this and fuck knows why I have to explain this to someone like you) - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, folks, please? I don't know why the heat over a fairly well settled question. There is no chance of this closing as other than a Keep, the support is overwhelming. We don't have to kill each other over this. --GRuban (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The notability of the subject seems to me to be thoroughly established by WP standards, and to be honest I can't quite work out from the claims set about above why a couple of editors are so energetically, and not perhaps all that emolliently, pressing a contrary point of view. Tim riley talk 18:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Lots of canvassing going on here, with Hank Green tweeting about the topic and everything. Sources are good, though. No reason to delete if there are so many sources about someone. She even won a pretty decent number of awards. Subscriber count is irrelevant, of course, but we don't have somekind of anti-Youtube bias going on on Wikipedia, do we? Basically a WP:SNOW keep right here. ~Mable (chat) 18:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: I have removed a series of "this editor was canvassed" tags from this AfD page because the template was used inappropriately. Several of the editors whose comments were tagged are among the main editors of the subject article, and would have been aware of the AfD from the notice on the article without any reason to believe they were canvassed. While general comments about outside publicity or unbalanced canvassing for an AfD may be appropriate, a specific editor's comment should not be tagged unless there is a specific reason to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Another procedural comment - to expand upon this, the second parameter of {{canvassed}} is used for "evidence", i.e. the diff where they were canvassed. For the purposes of this rather contentious AFD, canvassing templates must have this evidence. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in fact, WP:snowball. What can't people get about: she. is. notable.? Antonio Tony X Martin (what what? 13:17, 20 September, 2017 (UTC)
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/Liza_Koshy_(actress)&oldid=1138030783"