Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Blaque (3rd nomination)

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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Blaque[edit]

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

Blogger on youtube and the Huffington Post. Everything here is related to that, or otherwise part of her publicity. There is not a single source here I would consider reliable--certainly not the Huff Post, where she's a contributor. Certainly not a student newspaper. Certainly not the 4-word listing in The Advocate. The nearest is the MTV write-up. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a blogger and/or a YouTuber is not relevant to whether someone is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. What is relevant is whether there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources, and I believe Blaque meets that threshhold. ~~Is there a limit on how many times a page can be brought to AfD? She's hardly become less notable since the second nomination...~~ Strike that last bit, I now see that the second nomination was made in error. Funcrunch (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG in my eyes but not by a whole lot. Nominator, however, appears to miscast the sources. Advocate.com has a whole article on her. As does The Independant and Bustle and The Daily Dot. She's mentioned on a list of black changemakers by NBC News. Her name is mentioned by Salon. Featured in an article from 2014 by LA Times. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no significant achievements & Wikipedia is not pop-trivia-pedia. Citations are to sources such as Gurl.com, etc. Not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now has material sourced from coverage in reliable sources The Independent and The Advocate. PamD 07:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is an exercise in absurdism - a couple of editors, having failed on multiple previous occasions to argue non-notability, apparently think that if they (repeatedly) try to gut the article they might just con people on the next go-around. This is not an appropriate use of AfD. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: While I agree with keeping, to be fair there was one user repeatedly removing things from the article, who has since been blocked. Neither of the two people advocating for deleting here have removed content from the article, nor did they participate in the previous AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife:, Re: a couple of editors (...) (repeatedly) try to gut the article they might just con people on the next go-around..., I would request that you strike this statement. I've not participated in the prior AfDs and have not edited the article. My "Delete" vote was not based on any prior involvement with this page. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with PamD. The articles in The Independent and The Advocate alone are enough to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per EvergreenFir's findings, there's quite a bit of coverage of her. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. If anything, the sourcing is better than at the time of the last AfD, which was a unanimous "keep". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ANYBIO per the sources linked in both this and the previous AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of GNG from coverage in major sources such as the LA Times. Having all coverage being about the subject's vlogging/blogging activities is not a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of this article is notable. Passes WP:GNG. Article is well cited by major sources. Netherzone (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG clearly as demonstrated above. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major newspaper coverage turns up in the likes of the LAT and WaPo, besides the Advocate and Independent, if you use tools you can access via The Wikipedia Library. In an Admin, I find a lack of due diligence disturbing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National coverage on her from major sources consistently enough makes her notable for a Wikipedia page TheGnerd (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2017 (EST)
Keep Clearly passes the notability guide as shown by the multiple reliable sources. LA Tiems and WaPo are solid. And perhaps I'm missing something regarding multiple nominations over time, but the rationale to nominate again seems spurious, as it is identical to the last one which was only 1.5 years ago, "there are sources out there that cover the subject but they'r not adequate or independent". There was unanimous consensus then, there is thus far almost-unanimous consensus now. A second nomination (I see the labeled #2 was an error) should contain as a primary component of its argument the reason why the nominator thinks something has changes since the last go. Otherwise it just comes off as a form of jury-shopping. ValarianB (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2017 (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.