Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Phan

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. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Phan[edit]

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

This article is rife with references to unreliable sites, and I can find no significant third-party coverage (as required by WP:RS to justify the notability of this person. I do not believe she passes WP:N in the strictest sense as being popular on YouTube is not inherited notability, IMHO.

On the search I did on her I was unable to come up with any sources that I would consider reliable enough to stick in the article. If all the unreliable sources were removed from the article, it would be unsourced, I believe as the four external links all go to social networking sites. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 04:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite the fact that her popularity on YouTube is undeniable, to say that Michelle Phan is notable enough to be documented within Wikipedia is to say that every YouTube user who has accrued over 500,000 subscribers also deserves to be included. More reliable outside coverage should be obtained and the "biographical facts" acquired about Ms. Phan should be properly confirmed and corrected prior to publication. Soleil786 (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: although the article includes a couple references to newspapers, I do not believe it all adds up enough to confirm notability. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreliable references. Zohairani (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: somewhat loosely per WP:N:Entertainers:"2. Has...a significant 'cult' following." Presumably largely made up of adolescent females who find makeup experimentation entertaining. But article does await more neutral sources/detail. (No vested interest, just happened on a video, curious to know her story/age/education, Googled and wound up here, not itself a justification.) 96.227.148.61 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The St. Petersburg Times source in the article is certainly reliable, and for this subject matter, Las Últimas Noticias and Seventeen would also appear to be reliable. These sources were in the article at the time of nomination, so this would not be unsourced if we removed all the unreliable sources. These sources, along with coverage from as far afield as Japan[1], China[2] and Vietnam[3], demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin should note for vote above WP:JUSTAVOTE Kyle1278 15:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep over half a million subscribers? Notable!--Otterathome (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just added an article from a Vietnamese news outlet, as well as from a Memphis, USA paper. In addition the other sources cited above and included in the article are significant enough for inclusion.--Milowent (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I can vote without an account, but as of today Michelle has become the #1 most susbcribed Guru period on youtube. Doesn't that alone qualify as notability?165.196.0.10 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We usually don't use the amount of subscribers or where their status is on the YouTube rankings we look for out side coverage, and as for you question about if you can vote or not yes you can it dose not matter if you have an account or not. Cheers Kyle1278 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep due to added reference's now believe it slightly for WP:N or WP:Web .Kyle 1278 15:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Cleanup I would call her marginally notable, given the number of YouTube subscribers. However the article needs to be cleaned up in terms of the puffery in the piece. --mhking (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2010 (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.