Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paige Niemann

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. Star Mississippi 14:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Niemann[edit]

[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)

She had her 15 minutes. A clear case of WP:BIO1E, no in-depth coverage other than fluff pieces. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLP1E only applies iff all of the three criteria are met: (1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event – not met. RSes have covered her initially going viral on TikTok in 2019 ([1], [2], [3], etc) as well as the controversy about her OnlyFans account ([4], [5]); (2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual – not met. Niemann isn't a low-profile individual; she's (voluntarily) given an interview to a notable, reliable publication (Entertainment Tonight) and participates in self-promotion through her TikTok; (3) If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented – not really sure what the "event" would be here, but I guess probably going viral on TikTok as a Grande-lookalike? If that's the case, then this one definitely isn't met, as a lot sources covered her virality on TikTok (with her as the subject obviously). TL;DR, none of the criteria listed at BLP1E are met. Pamzeis (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'd create a subsection in the Ariana Grande article about celebrity lookalikes; this person is mostly famous for running an Onlyfans that looks like Grande (most of this individual's "fame" seems to hinge on the fact she's selling an image/fantasy of Ariana Grande to a certain crowd of people). I don't want to call it parody, but she's riding someone else's coat tails for her own benefit. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, Internet, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article pass GNG, and the subject passes BLP1E. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As for WP:BLP1E, there's a clause "if each of three is met". There can be no discrepancies in my opinion. And if this was the only argument to submit this article for removal, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be kept.--Rodgers V (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this is a BLP violation. A 19-year-old with a Tiktok isn't inherently a high-profile individual. The coverage that can be summarized as "check out this Ariana Grande impersonator on Tiktok" is one event. And this isn't significant to Ariana Grande's biography. We are left with "teenager has an OnlyFans" account, which is not a suitable topic for an article. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:15, 6 April 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.