Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Burvall


 * 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Amy Burvall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP1E -- no notability beyond that Lombardanian (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you say in your edit summary "The article Amy Burvall should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. She lacks notability, and be page appears to be maintained by an associate who resists any changes.)"? If so 1) I am not associated with her in any way 2) Is this AFD a form of revenge for reverting you? Are you 209.117.61.226? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Reason given for deletion is invalid. This is not an BLP1E case as the article and the sources make clear. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete passing mentions that do not establish true notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Educators' Videos Become YouTube Sensations"
 * "Amy Burvall & Herb Mahelona: History rock stars"
 * "Amy Burvall's history lessons set to pop songs are a smash hit on the web"
 * "Historyteachers videos in the classroom: interview with Amy Burvall"
 * The others are about her too as she is the main figure in the project. How are these "passing mentions"? Did you even look at the sources John? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no comeback defending this deletion rationale because there can be no comeback. These are clearly multiple instances of substantial coverage in independently-published sources of presumed reliability — the essence of a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. No sources of significance. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete. Must heed WP:NPF here.  Even then, subject's internet videos don't seem to have spurred anything notable (per WP's definition of significance) or enduring.  158.59.127.132 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG, with WP:SIGCOV in several reliable sources, including The Washington Post and The Sydney Morning Herald. Edwardx (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  14:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per WP:GNG (not WP:PROF). Along with the newspaper stories currently cited as sources there are several potential book sources from later dates, demonstrating continuing interest in the story  . If there were a parent topic we could redirect to, this might be a case for BIO1E, but there isn't — her videos are the topic, and making the title of the article be her name instead of something more cumbersome like Amy Burvall history videos is a reasonable editorial choice, backed up by an appropriate level of personal detail about Burvall. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some of the delete !votes here are frankly nonsensical. There are multiple articles in reliable sources that are solely about Burvall and her videos – how can that not be significant coverage? I can appreciate the WP:BLP1E concerns, so perhaps rename to History for Music Lovers, but as David says that makes no difference to the actual content. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. North America1000 05:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I am very dubious of her notability, but I do not know enough to feel qualified to vote. I am not doubting veracity, merely notability.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  14:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - This individual has be the subject of multiple instances of substantial, independently published coverage in sources of presumed reliability and therefore passes the General Notability Guideline. See the footnotes for those, no need to search for more on the web. Allegations of BLP-1E are misplaced; this exception to GNG is for something exceptional not actually dealing with an achievement or meaningful activity of the subject — such as, for example, winning the lottery or appearing on a live television show and farting loudly. Such single incidents generate masses of news coverage which are to be disregarded; as opposed to someone who is known for one thing, such as being an expert on the reproduction of mako sharks or being the inventor of the traffic light or — yes — being the creator of historically rewritten song videos. This is something completely different. Note the word EVENT in "BLP-1E." Carrite (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * keep per GNG. Adequate sourcing to establish notability.   Montanabw (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- meets WP:GNG per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.