Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Levin (influencer)

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. Tone 09:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Levin (influencer)[edit]

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

Rachel Levin (influencer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

pure advertisement, even for a field like this

Even given the dubious nature of the awards, she didn't actually win any of them. And the Inquirer is her home town paper. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is the Forbes source, it is considered generally unreliable per WP:FORBESCON, and this 2016 '5 things to know' People article mostly recycles two other sources instead of independently reporting, and promotes an upcoming interview. Beccaynr (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've revised the article, including to add sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of the refs listed, the only ones that I would consider to be SIGCOV would be the Philadelphia Inquirer and maybe LA Weekly. The rest are mostly "Top X of Y" type articles which do not mean much in terms of notability. Lean delete.-KH-1 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, and Vogue (even one of the less popular international editions) establish notability. Trillfendi (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Philadelphia Inquirer and LA Weekly and People and Adweek are sufficiently indepth and sufficiently important. Thank you Beccaynr. --GRuban (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the sources (I have read in full every one I mention, tho I haven't watched the linked videos from her site)
The story in People is an interview in which she says what she cares to, more than half of the text is in her own words, or at least are reported to be her own words; of the rest, part is a quote from a Social marketing company. Visually, the bulk of the contents are photos of her or videos of her.
LA Weekly is a less sophisticated interview, with 90% in her own words telling how successful she is--this is not a third party source, but the reprint of a press release.
Vogue has 17 words about her in a combination article, and the rest of the material about her is a link to her instagram site /.
"Adweek" isn't even a story--there is no text at all, just a like to a video where she stalks about herself with no editorial comment whatsoever--it's just a link to her own publicity and not a third party site at all.
The Inquirer story is at least in the words of the reporter, but it just reprints her publicity,
WWD is a combination story--she gets 17 words and a link to her video
WSJ has a quote from her in a general story
Hollywood Reporter --both stories are inclusion of her name in a long list of people considered for a prize she was nominated for, but did not win (or apparently even get honorable mention) The only thing she came out first in is a list complied by a marketing company, the least reliable of all imaginable sources.
E! similarly is a a list of people nominated for a prize she did not win.
The Guardian story is not about her, but a general one --and a rather good honest report on the general phenomenon; being honest, the complete content about her is Charles has more than 13 million subscribers, and so do Eleonora Maronese, Roi Fabito, Rachel Levin, Guillermo Díaz Ibañez, Wengie Huang, and Nathaniel Peterson. "
GRuban,Beccaynr, have you actually looked at them--if so, do you really assert that the Adweek is third party--that her own videos are a third party source? Do you assert that the two words of her name in the Guardian is significant or substantial content? (and similarly for the others)
There does seem to be one half-way usable source, the Inquirer. At least, it might be usable if it weren't in the "opinion": section and written by a columnist. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. I agree the Guardian is just a mention, I'm not counting that very highly. However, the People is clearly a non-trivial piece about her, as is the Adweek. The Adweek piece absolutely has a lot of text - as it says at the bottom, it "first appeared in the May 2, 2016 issue of Adweek magazine", which would make it rather difficult to do if it were "just a like(sic) to a video"; now I have to ask you whether you read it? Then there is the LAWeekly, also a long piece, not a video ... and just look at the number of them. --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect you didn't read the Adweek piece. It is paywalled; if you don't have a subscription (or ... use a hack, which I would never, ever, suggest you do, because that would be wrong ...) the free part is just a video, then comes the "please subscribe". But it is a full length piece, with real text, multiple videos, and, as I write, "first appeared in the May 2, 2016 issue of Adweek magazine". Don't know what I can tell you about it without copying and pasting it in, but it's not an indepth biography, but it is multiple several sections about how she does her stuff, which is presumably of interest to Adweek's subscribers (unlike biographies; Adweek is a magazine about advertising after all), about the same order of magnitude as the other pieces I cite. Between them they are sufficient. --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban You are correct, I mistakenly thought that was the entirepiece, and the video was an external link from the piece. I now understand how they do things. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, it would have been difficult to rewrite the article without looking at the sources I could access, and the rewrite was an exercise to help assess the reasons for deletion in the nomination, i.e. "pure advertisement", "dubious nature of the awards" and "hometown paper", and to assess WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability. As an initial matter, each of the three four types of awards not only have their own Wikipedia articles, the nominations also tended to receive independent coverage from reliable sources (including the Los Angeles Times), and I do not believe nominations should be discounted when there is this type of media notice. And when I reviewed the sources again, I realized this 2019 E!Online article is for a 2019 award nomination - a nonindependent source, but the award nomination is a form of secondary commentary on her career (also covered by e.g. WP:RSPDEADLINE).
  • At the time the article was nominated for deletion [1], it contained puffery, an advertising tone, and overstatements based on the cited sources. So from my view, one question was whether the article could be rewritten in a neutral point of view. Per WP:HEY, I think the advertising tone is adequately addressed.
  • As to the sources, The Philadelphia Inquirer describes itself as a regional paper, and a review of its news page indicates this includes New Jersey. The 2016 article about Levin labeled opinion is written by a columnist (columnists are presented in their own section on the PI opinion page) and I assessed her role as a columnist as indicating she is not an outside author per the reliable sources guideline, and then focused on incorporating straightforward facts into the article, not the 'publicity'. Given the in-depth coverage available, it helped develop some biographical information, while some career information was also supported by other sources, including MTV News, which found her first tutorial video 'worthy of notice' several years after it was created, with WP:SECONDARY commentary that includes classifying Levin as a 'famous beauty guru'.
  • With regard to The Wall Street Journal, her inclusion in the WSJ article at the beginning of her YouTube career was found 'worthy of notice' years later by the PI columnist, which is why I included it as an event in the Levin article. I do not have access to the full WSJ article but I can see WP:SECONDARY commentary at the beginning (e.g. "These next-generation Estée Lauders") that appears to apply to all of the subjects, so I erred on the side of this independent and reliable source supporting WP:BASIC notability on its own and with support from the PI columnist.
  • With regard to The Hollywood Reporter, per WP:RSP/WP:THR, There is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, and the first THR citation includes Levin in a 2015 article about "YouTube's Top 30 Influencers", "chosen by marketing powerhouse Ogilvy & Mather" with a blurb about her, which appears to support her WP:BASIC notability. And then the Levin article includes findings of another marketing company (ZEFR) that received notice from WP:BI (no consensus on reliablity) and People (per WP:RSP, reliable, but should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source.) From my view, the article could be rewritten to include a greater focus on the reporting by THR and remove the ZEFR-related information without an adverse impact on WP:BASIC notability, and could help address any ongoing concerns about an advertising tone that may exist, but it was People taking notice of the event that led me to include it, so I think further discussion would be helpful about whether the content should be included.
  • And then there is Women's Wear Daily, a trade industry journal "often referred to as the "Bible of fashion", according to its WP article. In its 2018 report on the 'beauty vlogging universe', Levin is ranked second in the list of "Top Performing Beauty Vloggers of 2017", with some accomplishments highlighted. For WP:BASIC, the guideline indicates it is not a strict count of words that determines notability, but instead what those words say, and this type of WP:SECONDARY coverage appears to support notability. Subjectively, we can discount marketing companies that track social media engagement, but when independent and reliable sources find them worthy of notice, this appears to be objective evidence that supports inclusion in this type of article.
  • As to the 2019 The Guardian article, it appears to clearly include Levin as part of "YouTube celebrity culture", which is a form of WP:SECONDARY commentary that supports her WP:BASIC notability, and then offers a straightforward fact about her YouTube stats in a context that helps demonstrate its significance, which is a form of WP:SECONDARY synthesis that further supports her WP:BASIC notability.
  • As to the 2020 LA Weekly article, it is bylined to a reporter, not a press release, and while it is mostly an interview, it also includes straightforward facts that help add content to the article, and further shows she has received sustained coverage over the course of her career.
  • As to the 2016 Adweek source, I do not have access to it and did not include information from it in the article, although I encourage anyone with access to review it for usable content. I mentioned it above as support for WP:BASIC notability because People also takes note of the interview in 2016, and notability may be supported based on how Adweek frames the interview as "And what brands can learn from the vlogger".
  • As to the 2020 Vogue Germany article, it helps show how she continued to receive coverage, and the WP:SECONDARY commentary is that she appears on a shortlist of beauty influencers/social media stars, which is Levin's claim to notability.
The WP:BASIC guideline includes, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability, and I think the sustained WP:SECONDARY commentary and synthesis outlined above is sufficient to establish her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As this concerns some l questions that frequently arise, I'm going to respond further: I think this shows a misunderstanding of "mention" vs. significant content" Including a name and nothing else is a mention. Usually I think the rule of thumb might be a paragraph at least. I'm not saying these mentions can be worth including for an article, but they are not RSs for notability . 'including straightforward facts" is not the criterion for a RS for notability -- it's a frequently used non-argument. The Inquirer is the major regional paper for the Philadelphia area. Like all such papers, it does cover local events more heavily than a national paper would. But this is true of some national papers also, even the NYT and WP. I do not accept that the listing of anything by an advertising and publicity agency is a reliable source for notability of anything. I am even reluctant to consider them RSs at all for any purpose whatsoever, though I suppose there can be exceptions. "include Levin as part of "YouTube celebrity culture", is not a criterion--including someone because of being especially important in celebrity culture is. The relevant policy is NOTDIRECTORY. Being part of something , or on a list of something is directory information.
We're dealing with an industry, internet influencers, whose very existence is based only and expressly on publicity and usually nothing else whatsoever. There can be exceptions when a influencer is also a notable artist or musician, or becomes one, but usually they're the most extreme example of "notable for being notable," except that in this expression notable is not being used in the WP meaning. We could consider changing our definition of WP:N to be whatever the world temporarily thinks important, however foolishly, but this provides an gradual decline into nothingness. What keeps us from it is the requirement for signficant coverage from RSs. In publicity-ridden fields, those terms in the GNG should be interpreted very strictly. The important thing about n encyclopedia is that it not be a vehicle for publicity--not for anyone's publicity/. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there is sustained WP:SECONDARY coverage in independent and reliable sources, based on her successful career on YouTube and other social media. Her participation on social media is her work, not 'publicity'. WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not appear to apply, because there are more than passing mentions due to the context available in the sources and in the prose of the article. As to the rankings by companies that analyze social media engagement, when independent and reliable sources find these worthy of notice, that is not her 'publicity', it is a measure of her success in terms that WP:BASIC appears to count for notability. Wikiproject YouTube also has an essay that echoes this reasoning, and it does not add a subjective criteria of 'notable artist or musician' to the exclusion of 'beauty influencer'. Beccaynr (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems like there are sufficient sources to meet guidelines (For me that's Philly Inquirer, People, and Adweek). Adweek also isn't an "advertising agency", it's a trade publication so it does count. I don't really love influencers but being well known and making mind-blowing contributions to art/music don't always go hand in hand. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2022 (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/Rachel_Levin_(influencer)&oldid=1069249234"