Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tati Westbrook (2nd nomination)

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. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tati Westbrook[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tati Westbrook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I thought there were reasonable people on this website who regard policy (or precedence, in a political context). That policy is G4. That policy should not apply to keeping an article that already has a notability tag and is being polluted with putrid, unreliable sources such as The Sun, Metro, and her OWN damn website. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Wikipedia is not TMZ, the Daily Mail, or E! News. This page was only recreated to pointlessly give for fuel to an internet feud. Notability is NOT derived from one event. Especially when the onus is on another person! Enough. (And when this "controversy" is old news in a week... notability still won't be there. 10. Year. Test. Trillfendi (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are over dozen sources; Vox, CNN, and other outlets have written about ther. LALALLALLALAL7 talk 15:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They haven’t written about her... they wrote about how the feud made Charles lose subscribers. Know the difference. Trillfendi (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to James Charles (Internet personality)#Controversies - Every reliable source used on this article includes the name "James Charles". So while Tati does deserve a mention on WP due to the extent at which this ordeal has been covered by reliable sources, it is more than conveniently done at Charles' article. Clearly WP:BLP1E—NØ 20:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There’s quite an obvious consensus to keep this. Me protesting would just be useless since the outcome is clear.—NØ 19:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yeah there is tons of credible sources for this. This is a notable article. Theprussian (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH Trillfendi (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . I dont see what's wrong with the article. It has credible sources such as CNN, VOX etc. It is a wikipedia worthy article Weatherextremes (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I said in previous comment that credence is given to more famous James Charles while practically nothing is even verified about Westbrook besides the fact that she has a company he betrayed and her follower number. Just because CNN and that ilk report on it doesn’t give the notability to her. Primest example from NYT. The notability here is that she started a controversy on YouTube? What do we even know about her actual beauty career? No wonder this page was deleted before. Trillfendi (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi is arguing for deletion.. are you for keep or delete, and if so why?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Lubbad85, you were asked a question without being tagged. This is just a courtesy ping. gidonb (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb Thanks for the ping. Honest mistake. I vote Keep. Lubbad85 (☎) 13:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this was just deleted six weeks ago. Is the new version significantly different than the old one? Also, it does appear as if all the coverage occurs between February and May 2019. Is this enough? I would tend to say it is not. the whole "feud" thing is very National Enquirer-esque. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to James Charles (Internet personality)#Controversies. Notability is derived from interaction with him; she does not have notability herself. Reywas92Talk 01:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - Fails WP:GNG. References are exclusively promotion or tabloid journalism WP:PROMOWP:SENSATIONAL. No lasting effect WP:LASTING. ogenstein (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is more expanded than that deleted at AfD, also had consensus here for at least a redirect. Is the new version significantly notable, not WP:BIO1E. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I am concerned about WP:BLP1E and some of the other concerns mentioned above, but I think that if more was done to flesh out this article beyond covering the basics and the recent controversy, it could be worthy of being here. I'm willing to keep the article around to see if it reaches that state, but if it continues to be in this stub status for a prolonged period, we can look into merging or doing something then. JaykeBird (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will be spending a bit more time to research this, though, so my opinion may change in the near future. For now, these are my thoughts. JaykeBird (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good grief, I've heard of her and I'm an elderly British bloke who doesn't go near social media. I read about her yesterday in The Atlantic when I didn't know what a tea account was[1] (and I can't understand why an influencer has any influence). Now, there's a lot of BLP1E stuff (if it really is 1E) but, seeing she had an article created in 2016, I looked back into the past. Is the Gazette Review reliable?[2]. What's there looks independent and significant enough to me. I'm less clear about Bustle[3] but there's loads of stuff like this. I frankly wouldn't bother to put her in my encyclopedia but our guidelines and BLP policy don't suggest to me the article should be deleted. Thincat (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since passing the WP:GNG. We are already merging or deleting the feud article. This one is a biography with lasting value. The page was deleted in the past before YouTube rating and the media coverage of Tati Westbrook went way up. We shouldn't cling to the old situation but take an unbiased look at current reality. gidonb (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in this very video she says none of this was done to improve her internet career as she has rejected all media inquiries, nor to systematically destroy James Charles’s reputation The fact that only one thing can be verified about her career through coverage of this spur-of-the-moment is why there are applicable policies. If she was using this to her advantage, there would actually possibly be something to talk about. She even wants her 2 million new subscribers to go away. Trillfendi (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your phrases are under my opinion but I do not see a clear relationship. We rarely use YouTube as a reference for anything. Reacting as if this were a totally new chain: If this information is included in reliable secondary sources, there should be no problem to include some of it in the article. gidonb (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thincat and Ritchie333's relist in the previous AfD. Bustle is a fine source for non-controversial stuff, far from the British tabloids. Trillfendi hits the nail on the head, however, about the drama since Tati did not monetize the recent video. But that is just our opinion, and it doesn't change the fact the article meets GNG. wumbolo ^^^ 11:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC) wumbolo ^^^ 13:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per remarks by gidonb, although agree with others who say sourcing should be improved and fleshed out. Tati was a prominent YouTuber in the beauty industry before the current drama, and as such is just as notable as the many others already found in the category Female YouTubers. Kharitite (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG, the recent controversy probably pushed it over the GNG edge, but it meets notability requirements at this point.LM2000 (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has now 10 million subscribers on YouTube alone and a lot more on other channels. Her dispute with Charles resulted in a lot of MSM coverage. I appreciate she has not done very much that is significant; perhaps revisit in a year. Jontel (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. Passes WP:NTEMP: Subject had media coverage prior to the event. Given her career and YouTube following will continue to have it after. Popscreenshot (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as many have stated above, the subject meets WP:GNG at the very least, especially considering the recent slew of related media coverage. This discussion looks to be in WP:SNOW territory.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and anyone who calls The Sun and Metro "unreliable sources" should not be involved in deletion discussions whatsoever. 108.17.18.29 (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And any IP user who thinks the Sun is a reliable source despite evidence to the contrary might just be a troll.... Trillfendi (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You misread what WP:PUS said. It said the sources, like other tabloid newspapers "should be used with caution," not that they were unreliable. That doesn't mean the sources give false or unverifiable information. It means that it includes information that only favors a certain point, not that the information they cover isn't true. That's why you're statement is entirely wrong, and if you respond by saying I didn't counter-argue you, you didn't read my argument. 108.17.18.29 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the Sun is designated as a generally-unreliable publication. References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article and they shall neither be used for determining the notability of any subject." It’s notoriously one of the least reputed sources on Wikipedia. If you're defending The Sun's reliability then you don’t really have a foot to stand on in source-related arguments.—NØ 23:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know, if you watch enough Mark Dice and David Pakman videos, you'll know that other sources like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC News, NBC News, The New York Times and similar sources are considered reliable and have had just as many stories removed for being faked as the examples of The Sun provided in the link you just brought up. 108.17.18.29 (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any diffs to back that up? As for The Sun, start here, here, here, here and here. I could go on, but everyone else will get bored. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this is all you need to know that supports my claim.108.17.18.29 (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sadads (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The nomination makes a case that a feud page should be gone, however it has already been deleted. It would be rediculous to also delete the biography of Tati Westbrook that deals with the totallity of her career, as covered in many sources. Coverage is so extensive that there is virtually no support for this nomination. I would like to encourage the nominator to withdraw and to be more selective in AfDs. If not, this may very well be WP:SNOW kept. gidonb (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - The news coverage of the subject has been less than superficial. A biography page requires in-depth coverage. That doesn't exist.
There really isn't much to the page. The subject is popular on youtube, has developed a successful niche and released a product. Credit to her for those accomplishments but I have yet to see anyone explain what makes that notable? She has been doing this for nine years on youtube; why the suddenly notability?
The subject wasn't newsworthy until this month, and even this world-changing feud is already old news. Most of the stories referenced here had to explain who she was and why it was important enough to read about because most people who aren't immersed in makeup or celebrity drama don't consider it to be significant. Most of the sites that covered the story did so with a single article and then promptly forgot about it. Most (all?) news coverage kept the story in the celebrity/fashion news section rather than leading with it.
Wikipedia requires depth, which we don't have here. Even if the subject could pass the WP:10YEARTEST, which I don't believe, there isn't anything in this article that is substantial, in-depth or enduring. Functionally, this is a stub and should be deleted for that reason as well. I should add that reading any one of the scandal stories will pretty much tell you everything that's on this page. This is a good indicator that there is insufficient material to warrant a biography page.

WP:PSEUDO An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context. If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all.

WP:SINGLEEVENT Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people.

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events....

ogenstein (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, your discussion focus is clearly base on the WP:IDONTLIKE. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Newsweek says she's "widely considered to be a progenitor of YouTube’s beauty scene". I think that pretty much demonstrates notability right there. --valereee (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unrelated to the nomination, but I am suspicious/concerned that the user:Mothman aka ogenstein is a sock of someone! The account is create in 2008, and his user page create on 3 May 2019. That account re-use recently, and did many delete vote on the still open Afd (mean: Adf Delete voter). I just thought that here prior to starting an investigation. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please let me know if you have any specific issues with any of the policy or guideline arguments that I have made. Thanks. ogenstein (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MyanmarBBQ:, per WP:AGF, the thing to do is stat a WP:SPI if you suspect socking and have proof, rather than accuse in an AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the sources are completely trivial at best. Her feud isn't notable and neither is she. Praxidicae (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, I'm surprised, given the Newsweek quote. What am I missing? --valereee (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No surprise here, I was clear in my reasoning that it's still trivial. It's all based on some stupid feud between YouTubers that no one will care about in a month. Praxidicae (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"no one will care about in a month." Wow, that was sure a combination of both a WP:WHOCARES and WP:CRYSTALBALL argument I'd never thought I'd see, but here we are. 108.17.18.29 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with a redirect? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say anything was wrong with a redirect (in my !vote)? No and if that's how it ends up, so be it but like I've made clear time and time again, I abhor the idea of redirecting a non-notable BLP to another BLP over some trivial garbage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivial that according to Newsweek she is "widely considered to be a progenitor of YouTube’s beauty scene"? That seems like a credible claim to notability, I would have thought? And I think YouTubers are a pox on society and wish none of them were notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --valereee (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically a side note in a caption of a photo and not even part of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if I'm looking at a different version...the one I'm looking at says in the second paragraph Charles entered the YouTube sphere nearly three years ago, with a video titled "SUMMER GLOW + BOLD LIP Makeup Tutorial." Shortly after he debuted, he gained Westbrook’s attention, who then took on the dual role of being Charles’ mentor and parental figure. Westbrook is widely considered to be a progenitor of YouTube’s beauty scene and Charles cites her as "the reason he got involved with make-up." To put it succinctly, Tati’s a big deal. --valereee (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, looks like it's in both places...photo caption says Westbrook, who is widely regarded as the mother of the YouTube beauty community. So they're actually calling her out twice in the same article as being notable. --valereee (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why my single !vote is subject to so many attempts to convince me to change it but I stand by it as I still don't think that brief comment in Newsweek is enough given everything else and think time would be better spent getting better sources and fixing the article rather than attempting to sway my opinion otherwise. It won't change based on the sourcing currently available in the article. Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you know we've done more source arguing than just a Newsweek quote. See my argument and Thincat's searches. 108.17.18.29 (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae is not a dude.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Redirecting" is not a logical. Her career is not dependent upon him (they're not even related) or this ephemeral 15 minutes of fame "controversy" just because he lost a few subscribers. The real problem here is outside of this spur-of-the-moment, practically nothing is known or verifiable about this woman besides "she has a vitamin company" and "she was an original beauty 'influencer'" (debatable...). "Earn the Necklace", "Create + Cultivate", "Dexerto", Twitter? That's all you could manage to come up with when it's not about this High School Musical-ass story? "James Charles & Tati Westbrook controversy" was rightfully deleted upon discussion–and should have been left that way. Trillfendi (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We usually agree but I disagree about this. An article used to exist at that title so that’s still gonna be a search term people use to find information about the feud. Redirects do not require notability. Sounds like WP:IDLI. The controversy did happen, information about it can be on Charles' article, the redirect is fine to exist.—NØ 18:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to the "more famous" person isn't the solution. These are two different people. The "James Charles & Tati Westbrook controversy" page should have never been created but it goes to show just how pressed people around here are to make an article out of dung without regard for policy or quality to get a few page views (no wonder they recreated Westbrook's page "all of a sudden"). A reasonable person would have just added that information to Charles's ever growing controversy section and left well enough alone. This "controversy" will "interest" for 2 weeks but after that, what's left? Notability is not temporary. Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not the burn book. Trillfendi (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, I wasn't trying to get you to change your vote! I was trying to figure out why you and I were interpreting this particular source so very differently. My apologies, I should have communicated better since clearly a question is always interpretable as a challenge! I don't care whether she's ultimately deemed notable or not, so long as we come to whatever decision is most-likely right. I'd never heard of this woman before this, don't watch YouTube, can't remember how I even got here, don't even wear makeup lol --valereee (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was totally unfamiliar with this until I accidentally came here. Reading the sources, it seems a clear case of ONEEVENT.. It does seem from this discussion that she has many fans. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Many of the "keep" !votes do not rise above ILIKEIT of ITSNOTABLE. What is needed are policy-based arguments.
WRRRROOOOOOOONNNNGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We've brought up reliable sources about the subject, so saying that the Keep arguments are just ILIKEIT statements are flat-out wrong. And reliable sources meet Wikipedia policy and notability guidelines, so saying we need to make "policy-based arguments" are also wrong too, because we technically already have. 108.17.18.29 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OMG, The administrator said Many of the "keep" !votes do not rise above ILIKEIT of ITSNOTABLE.!! So how does this mean?? Let you know, James Charles's fans arrive here and did WP:IDONTLIKEIT! Congratultions Top fans of Jame🎉! Please note, I'm from Myanmar, i know nothing abouts of Tati and Jame. Now, I don't care anymore this two persons and still opening discuss! How can i change my vote? Best MyanmarBBQ (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, above I suggested two new sources that long predate the event and to me seem to meet the GNG criteria[4][5] – other people here seem to agree. Those suggesting delete seem to be ignoring these or denying that any such references exist. If policy-based argument is required then WP:BLP1E seems to be the relevant policy and none of the three conditions for deletion seem to apply whereas all must apply for deletion to be warranted. Thincat (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This, for lack of a better word, is absolute garbage. It is on par with "celebrity networth" wikis in regard to this specific piece and it's nothing more than gossip sourced trivia. It has absolutely no depth to it. Also the bustle piece is questionable Praxidicae (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the Bustle piece what written by a freelance writer. wumbolo ^^^ 12:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the Bustle piece what written by a freelance writer." That doesn't prove jack. All sorts of freelance writers work for independent sources, who have to prove what the freelance writer wrote. Invalid argument. 108.17.18.29 (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, The Gazette Review argument of being "on par with "celebrity networth" wikis" and being "gossip sourced trivia" is entirely assumption-and-feelings-based and not factual at all, so that throws that argument right out of the window. Didn't we learn anything from Ben Shapiro?108.17.18.29 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still haven't seen any reliable sources that would indicate that this person is notable. The Gazette Review seems beneath most (and is gone anyway) and I notice that they didn't even bother writing about this spat. They post an article about her (not even alleged) net worth but they don't even bring up money/revenue/income/worth in the text. Even the writer didn't take it seriously. We have one trivial event. If it matters, Charles has most of his lost subs back — he's over 15M again. Everyone else has moved on. I can only imagine that the editor who keeps prolonging this mess possesses a cruel streak. ogenstein (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: I have blocked MyanmarBBQ as a technically  Likely sock of Emily Khine. They appear to have admitted this now, so I've struck their comments. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I have blocked 108.17.18.29 for block evasion by user:EditorE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, could having a top 1000 subscribed you tube channel (according to article) reflect some notability (a bit like a book being on a best seller list, see no 1 of WP:NBOOK)? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic of this article is absolutely notable. Even if it is for via drama. A sporting event is essentially meaningless and non-notable if no one watches. Well, 50 million people watched Westbrook's drama video. Also, the list of Diamond Play Button recipients is still limited. If we subjectively pick and choose what is and isn't trash or garbage or unimportant, some people might get rid of articles on chess players or MMA fighters or space exploration or the Harlem Shake meme. I would personally get rid of most if not all Kardashian family members. Since we can't develop such subjective standards, we must concede that notability is inextricably tied to popularity. If the article is not up-to-snuff, then it simply has to be improved with higher quality sources, it does not make the topic non-notable. --SVTCobra (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point the lack of originality that goes into comparing irrelevant people or abstract ideas to athletic feats is laughable. To their credits, the Kardashians’ mindless minutiae have been in the news every day for 12 years. But they’ve gotten Forbes and Vogue covers out of it. And still after all this it’s James Charles getting the headline space. Trillfendi (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
News coverage on Westbrook goes back to at least 2016, long before anyone had heard of James Charles. It is hard to argue a 10 million sub channel is irrelevant, imho. So many TV shows attract fewer views and have no trouble passing notability. Same with books and other pieces of art. I am sorry if my justification of my vote lacked originality. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subscriber number does not any way contribute to or equal notability. If that were the case I have a long list of "Instagram models" who have millions of followers and need articles now off the strength of that illogic. Trillfendi (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely a contributing factor. All your statement shows is 1 million is not the correct metric for notability on Instagram. Maybe it is 10 million or 50 million or higher. At some point they would be considered notable. However, as of right now all of the top instagram accounts are celebrities, such as sports figures or actors, or organizations such as NASA. So it doesn't seem to be a problem, though a couple have found their way to Wikipedia such as Anna Faith and Jen Selter. --SVTCobra (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of it is. Otherwise direct me to the Wikipedia policy that says followers equal notability. Stretch before you reach. Trillfendi (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the notability guide for people, subsection entertainers WP:ENT The number two criteria is: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 05:32, 29 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tati_Westbrook_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=899477960"