Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elf Lyons

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 18:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elf Lyons[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)

Several reasons for this nom: most significantly - notability. The subject just isn't notable. Low social media following (1720 facebook page likes, 6268 twitter followers and 2714 instagram followers in total). Low level of 'significant, independent coverage in reliable sources' - a couple of articles/interviews/profiles (one guardian, one standard being the limit of what matches this criteria - two in total does not represent significance).
The article itself is sparsely detailed, because there is little info of note about the subject - something that confirms lack of notability.
The article is poorly formatted, not to basic wiki standards. This can be fixed though.
The article is poorly referenced - two in total - one of subject's own site, another being the review of an Adelaide fringe performance on a blog.
Some curious weirdness from the article's creator - as part of their efforts, they added this Original version before quickly trimming the strange content. This was immediately followed by quite transparently COI activity from an SPA IP with these edits - admittedly slightly outside of the immediate scope of AfD but significant in that if we strip out the unreferenced content added by the subject themselves, the article would be fully devoid of content, further re-inforcing the notability issue.

Rayman60 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This comedian and writer has been profiled in The Times, The Evening Standard and The Guardian. Vogue named her as one of the top 5 new comedians. She has performed numerous one-woman acts to acclaim at the Edinburgh Fringe and other festivals. She has also written for major newspapers. A simple Google search turns up much more serious coverage.. Someone needs to do the research and pull out some info from all these sources to expand the article, but there are lots of sources to choose from. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Guardian, The Times, Evening Standard and others so passes WP:GNG. The other problems can be edited out by neutral editors, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that "social media" (sorry, but I have to put that in quotes because these sites are far from social) following is irrelevant to notability in either direction. The more common problem that we have is with people saying that someone must be notable because of a high following, but it is equally fallacious to claim that someone is not notable because of a low following. I have no followers on any of these sites, simply because I have no reason to use them (I actually talk to my friends and family), but that is not the reason why I am not notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks to SSilver's efforts, notability is clearly demonstrated. Phil Bridger - whilst social media following is a rather crude metric, it does constitute part of the WP:ENT notability in assessing whether they have, or lack, a significant fan base. No-one can argue the case for someone being a global entertainment icon if they have 37 followers across 4 major platforms. Rayman60 (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The number of social media followers can only be relevant for people who actively pursue large numbers of social media followers. It is still quite possible for entertainers to eschew this path and for their fan bases to consist of real people choosing to actually watch and listen to their performances, rather than virtual people following or liking them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that people who use social media are not "real"? A nasty prejudice there which I fear (although I hope not, obviously) might have to do with racial resentment over (some of) the people who have been boosted by it. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty prejudice? Racial resentment? Really? Please don't make such silly accusations. And social media accounts do not equate to real people, in that it is possible for one real person to use multiple accounts or for multiple real people to use one account. Notability on Wikipedia is defined by coverage in independent reliable sources, not such easily gamed things as social media followers. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the sources provided, clearly notable. Maybe even close this if the nom is fine with it. William2001^(talk) 21:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. Subject is well sourced and some reliable source as the guardian and etc... had worked about the subject. And also the subject is notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that article now fixed with The Times and The Guardian The Guardian pieces are WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS/P. She is also covered as the principal subject by other strong RS such as Reuters. Britishfinance (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also another WP:SIGCOV in Daily Telegraph. Britishfinance (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2019 (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.