Draft talk:Cleo Abram

Notability
@Ktkvtsh, what is your argument for notability here? I'd been keeping this in draftspace since, although I think it's highly likely Abram will eventually become notable, I hadn't found the sources for it yet. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 14:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * She has over 1 million subscribers and hosts her own YouTube based show. We could re-draft it if need be. Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ktkvtsh, subscriber count is generally not accepted as sufficient if a YouTuber does not pass WP:GNG, and channels with over a million subscribers regularly get deleted. I think this article is at high risk of being AfDed currently, so I'm going to redraftify until it's on a bit more solid footing. I have a Google Alert set up for mentions of Abram, so as soon as there's additional coverage I'll hopefully see it. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I improved the sources and was bold and pushed. I was going to write an article, but saw this already existed. There are multiple third party sources which cover Abram and her work so I think it is defensible.--Varavour (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources used at present are largely not reliable ones, so I don't think this could survive an AfD at present. I have a news alert set up for her, so when there is sufficient sourcing I'll publish. But we're not there yet. If you're curious about specific sources, feel free to ask and I'm happy to discuss. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, could you elaborate? --Varavour (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, so looking at the sources added:
 * Into the Gloss consists entirely of an essay submitted by Abram, so similar to WP:INTERVIEW, it's not considered a WP:SECONDARY source that could contribute to notability under WP:GNG.
 * Thrilling looks like SEO-bait. Its author is a pseudonym, which is never a good sign. So overall, I'd say not reliable.
 * Video Consortium does actually look like a qualifying source to me. The producer is a BBC reporter, and although it's an interview, it looks like one where the journalist is engaged enough to make it a secondary source.
 * The Family Nation looks like more SEO-bait (the subheadings with search terms are always a giveaway). The author's page offers no journalistic credentials, nor does the site's about page speak to its ethics policies (e.g. a corrections policy). So I'd say also clearly unreliable.
 * So we ultimately have one notability-qualifying source, but GNG requires multiple. So this is close but ultimately not quite there yet. It's better to wait a bit for her to become clearly notable than to launch it prematurely, have it AFDed, and then have to fight to re-create it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)