Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KathleenLights

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 delete. consensus is apparently delete. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KathleenLights[edit]

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

Non-notable youtuber. Improperly sourced. Mduvekot (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mduvekot, could you say what you mean by improperly sourced? There are primary sources to her YouTube channel but these complement a number of secondary beauty sites like Revelist, Bustle, Parsel, and Fashionista. (I helped Rheab16 with this article, but know nothing of the beauty scene. But I can't see that Lights is any less notable than the dozens of other YouTuber's listed.) -Reagle (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll got through them in order. You already agree that YouTube is not a good source. Fashionista may be acceptable. The husband tag is Light herself, so that's an unacceptable primary source. The About Us is KL Polish Light's own company, also an unacceptable primary source. I think you can also agree that that Parsel is a a promo piece in a blog, without a byline, with no signs of editorial control. Colorpop is not an independent source. Then there's more YouTube, and still more YouTube. loveforlacquer is not a reliable source, explorewithcorinth is a blog, more YouTube, Bustle (magazine) is a maybe acceptable as a source, but a look at the article, it shows nothing that is useable for an encyclopedic bio. They're product announcements. Then there's more YouTube. Revelist has no byline, and again, is just a product announcement. Then we get Kali Borovicfrom Bustle again, who tell us that "The colors are gorgeous and the price it totally affordable, making this a makeup lovers dream.". Then we get some more YouTube, and finally Bustle informs us that Light is "This beauty vlogger is known for creating stunning looks on YouTube." None of these sources are substantially about the subject. So yeah, the article is improperly sourced. These are not independent, reliable sources, and they do not establish that the subject is notable. Mduvekot (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I know little of this space, but I've heard of the sites Bustle (magazine) and Fashionista, and Revelist has been used as sources in other articles, so these seemed like evidence of notability and something to build upon. -Reagle (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is quite obviously a YouTuber that deserves a page. Pages like Jaclyn Hill are some to compare; this page has similar sources and even less content. She is also on the List of YouTubers amongst other YouTubers with similar number of followers/subscribers and similar video content (make-up, fashion, beauty). Sources are few, but arguably notable, because presence outside her own social media is limited. I do not believe this page should be deleted. The information is true and is phrased and used objectively. Rheab16 (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The number of subscribers to a YouTube channel is irrelevant. We care about coverage in independent, reliable sources. The kind of youtuber that the subject is also has no bearing on notability. I find your statement that Sources are few, but arguably notable, because presence outside her own social media is limited confusing. Are you arguing that she is notable because there is so little coverage in reliable independent media? Do you mean that YouTubers in general are ignored by the mainstream media and that we should have different notability criteria for biographies of "social media personalities"? Please clarify. When replying, please indent your response with semicolons. Mduvekot (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to user space. As written, it both fails to establish notability and is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was already moved to userspace, and the current article is the result. Regardless of tirades such as that posted at User:Rheab16/analysis, the article creator failed to research how and what gets published on WP. I nominated the page for deletion back in February, and had conversations with Reagle about several of the articles written by his students. YouTube is not a reliable source. When this was moved to mainspace I took a look and found it incredibly promotional. Which happens frequently with new editors. But if new editors reach out to experienced editors, either directly through talk pages, or through forums such as WP:TEAHOUSE, they are almost always received with positivity. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no real claim of significance, let alone any proof of notability. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article is poorly written and not sourced properly - it needs to use reliable sources (and not youtube videos). However she receives significant coverage - as a quick google-news check shows (alot goes to Bustle. But lots and lots of other places cover her). While makeup is not my thing, it certainly is other people's thing, as evidenced by: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a bunch more: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Seems like "beauty vloggers" are much more influential these days than traditional models.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz Thanks. I think the article should be kept (and rewritten) if the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That does not appear to be the case:

[19] is syndicated from a blog, hellogiggles. Neither an independent nor a reliable source.
[20] Bustle is an blog that generates revenue from affiliate marketing, so neither an independent nor a reliable source.
[21] has not content beyond "Kathleen Lights New Nail Polish Line Is Seriously Dope, and We've Got the First Look at Every Single Shade"
[22] Has some outdated stats on her social media reach, and mentions collaborations with Colourpop and Morphe, and her nail polish brand. That's not significant coverage.
[23] Mentions that she's from Florida, has outdated YouTube subscriber numbers and mentions that she has no professional background as a make-up artist.
[24] has as a byline "by Kathleen Lights & PRESENTED BY CREST 3D WHITE WHITESTRIPS". You cannot be seriously suggesting this.
[25] That's an interesting one. Cosmetics firms using social media influencers as a marketing strategy is a relatively new and interesting phenomenon, that probably is worthy of encyclopedic attention, and I'm sure that it can be described in an article like the one on affiliate marketing. Still not sure that the mention of her collaboration with Seed amounts to significant coverage.
[26] Advertisement. Actually says so in the byline.
[27] more from hellogiggles. see above
[28] I'm not sure about WWD. This particular instance reads like a rehashed product announcement. A maybe for me.
[29] Quotes KL, but says nothing about her.
[30] Says that "she has dealt with frequent panic attacks and lingering anxiety caused by trauma" and quotes her quoting her therapist. Is the author, Jessica Eggert, a reliable expert on psychological trauma? Are we going to mention some unsubstantiated claim about mental illness in a BLP? No way.
[31] Glamour (magazine) I'm not sure how Glamour operates, it's part of Condé Nast, appears to have editorial control, but this particular piece is listed under Product Reviews. Those are not independent. They're not journalism, they're promotion.
[32] Only has a quote from KL: ""These new @elfcosmetics brushes literally made me gasp," We're going to use that?
[33] "ColourPop founders Laura and John Nelson marketed the brand by having popular beauty bloggers, like YouTuber Kathleen Lights and Instagrammer Feral Creature, promote the makeup on social pages." That's all they have.
[34] This article is in Indonesian, but it doesn;t tell us anything we didn't already know; she's from Miami and has collaborated with (translation:promoted) a number of cosmetics brands.
[35] The Independent is a real newspaper, and very much a reliable source, most of the time. Except here, the article consists of copies of instagram posts.

TL;DR None of the links above constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously some of these are far from great - and clearly coverage of models can be, umm, vain. But I would say part of the significance of a fashion model is the breadth of her dealings. Here is a bunch more:

[36] (the text is on the side bar - need to slide over to reach, quite a bit of it) - listing + info in a top10 social media list.

[37] - Entry about her in a Swiss newspaper.

[38] - Entry about her in ione (which appears to be Vietnamese or Thai? Google-translate eats it)

[39] - another listing in a vlogger list with some info.

+ of course follower numbers in youtube and instagram + lots and lots of one-liner references in other publications (she tweeted X, she promoted Y, etc.).

I agree this needs a rewrite (+ sourcing RS) - and it won't be me (too far out of my fields of interest) - but if written and sources properly this probably would've passed muster.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've just been show that the sources you provided are not usable, and now you give us even more because you think notability can be established by the sheer amount of unusable sources? Come on. Mduvekot (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I looked at some of the sources that Icewhiz found - although some are slightly weak sources, there are enough nods and namechecks in sources such as Cosmopolitan, particularly the Indonesian Cosmopolitan link that recommends her as someone to follow, that show that she is notable. The Women's Wear Daily article specifically about her is a good source, and the Business of Fashion source also works for me. I'm less persuaded by the Irish Independent source, but it does support that she is known as a make-up guru. So while the article is pretty lousily written, and the subject may seem instantly non-notable, I think there is plenty of evidence that she is noteworthy in that particular field she has chosen. I concur that vloggers and bloggers do show a lot more influence on fashion nowadays - while she isn't quite as notable as Susanna Lau, she still passes notability for me and I'm usually quite scathing on social media celebs. Mabalu (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is just another online celeb of marginal notability with obvious promotional pressure on the article. WP is not social media and is not part of the blogosphere nor the transient celebrity of blogosphere. What is of enduring, encyclopedic interest here? This is not what we are here for. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - This article is promotional in tone and should not be kept in its current form. Merely tagging a promotional article as needing rework sometimes isn't good enough. If it isn't made neutral in six days, delete it without prejudice to re-creating it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 7 April 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.