Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Venti


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Brittany Venti

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Per WP:BASIC. I could only find 3 reliable secondary sources covering her at all and only one of them covers her extensively (a Vice article part of a series on YouTubers), the other two only mention her in passing: the BuzzFeed News article about the Balenciaga controversy only covers her TikTok video and the Vocativ article covers her arrest during a public demonstration (and only the first half of the article talks about her or the arrest). I don't think the criteria are being met yet. Kzkzb (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Entertainment. Kzkzb (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The Vocativ is titled Alt-Right Provocateur Arrested At May Day Protest, Popular streamer Brittany Venti was arrested by the NYPD at Union Square. The article is clearly about her, so that counts towards her notability.  I think coverage of her in a notable documentary series also counts towards notability.   D r e a m Focus  13:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  14:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.dorkaholics.com/brittany-venti-4chan-hackers/ Google news search shows this is a legitimate news source. There are no discussions about it on the reliable sources noticeboard.  They state But, IMHO, this was a [dark] internet prank and Brittany Venti should get an Oscar for her wonderful over the top performance.   D r e a m Focus  14:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2019/04/rise-YouTube-ironic-teenage-right-Soph Google news search shows she's mentioned here, but its hidden behind a paywall. Does anyone have access to that?  That is listed as being reliable on the reliable sources noticeboard .  ClutchPoints https://clutchpoints.com/the-five-best-vtuber-moments-of-2020 Had a video of hers listed as "The Five Best Vtuber Moments of 2020".  The video listed links to her YouTube channel, it one of her videos, they mentioning her.   D r e a m Focus  14:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The NS link is only a brief mention so not helpful to establish notability. In total it says: Sophia is best known to her fans as Lieutenant Corbis, but more recently has changed her online name to Soph. “Lieutenant Corbis was kind of a corny name”, she tells Brittany Venti, another young, far-right YouTube star. Mujinga (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dream Focus On your first reply:
 * The Vocativ article only talks about her arrest in its first half (likely as part of broader coverage of the protests), and only talks about Venti herself in a two-sentence paragraph; this is hardly significant coverage, regardless of the fact that she is named in the article's byline.  And even if multiple articles were made about her arrest, that would count towards the notability of her arrest, not towards the notability of Venti herself.
 * Although I agree that the Vice article brings her closer to meeting the criteria, BASIC states that People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, while she has only received significant coverage in one. I would change my mind if I were shown another article in the same vein of that article but I haven't found any.
 * On your second reply:
 * I had seen that Dorkaholics article and chose not to include it in my reasoning because I wasn't sure if it was considered a reliable source, but I'll take your word for it. However it doesn't give her significant coverage since it's an opinion piece on a YouTube video of her being harassed by trolls, where she is only described as a YouTuber and streamer.
 * On your third reply:
 * I had glossed over that New Statesman article in my research since its title didn't seem relevant to the topic. It's about a YouTuber named Sophia and it only mentions Venti by name once ("Lieutenant Corbis was kind of a corny name", she tells Brittany Venti, another young, far-right YouTube star.) so it doesn't give her significant coverage. -- Kzkzb (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete She's mentioned in a New Statesman article, but it's paywalled. . Hardly any coverage at all, nothing at length. I'm not even seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Vocativ is trivial coverage; the entire article is a few paragraphs long, she's barely mentioned. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've found an additional source, and improved the article using it and existing sources. She has made news for her anti-misogyny work, then been featured in a notable documentary about that, also made news for being banned from Twitch, and for being arrested. Her role in the Balenciaga ad campaign controversy alone could make her notable. All that said, written reliable sources don't have extensive coverage about her. But in the context of WP:BASIC saying People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject., then I think that is exactly how I see this article. CT55555 (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I removed content per WP:BLPCRIME and do not think sources only supporting content suggesting the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime can be used to support notability for this subject per policy. I can access The New Statesman article, which focuses its 4-graf coverage on a YouTuber who produces racist, misogynist content and may be doing this "ironically", and only has this about Venti: "“Lieutenant Corbis was kind of a corny name”, she tells Brittany Venti, another young, far-right YouTube star." Beccaynr (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, and I am not certain, but I think most of her content is satire. Anyway, I found her Twitter and the latest video is about how people are misunderstanding satire in this era: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nf-BzOcdwY&ab_channel=BrittanyVenti CT55555 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters. This is only a question of whether there is sufficient support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability. There just does not appear to be much in-depth content available, even with combined sources, to develop an article about her. Beccaynr (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:BASIC. The 2016 Vice article is essentially a review of her work (by contrast, Dorkaholics has no editorial standards that I could find, and their post is not a review), and the 2022 Guardian documentary review offers three sentences: "When Theroux interviewed Brittany Venti, one of the rare women involved in the bros’ work and the recipient of the above rape threat, she said she had assumed most of what they said was tongue-in-cheek. But when they turned on her, she realised the misogyny (“They say all women are whores”) was real rather than ironic. She has not yet extrapolated further, still making light of anti-semitic footage and although mixed race herself, apparently unperturbed from the beginning by the racism that is central to the cause." In the 2022 book Meme Wars, she is described as a "well-known internet troll" at p.177 with a brief mention of her participation in disrupting an online performance piece by Shia LaBeouf, and she is reported by Buzzfeed News in December 2022 to have first tweeted about the Balenciaga campaign, e.g. "(“I don’t know for a fact that Balenciaga are satanists or whatever,” Venti told BuzzFeed News, "but I can see why some would draw that conclusion.”)". It seems WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article due to a lack of significant coverage. She seems to have some notoriety, but this is not the same as notability; the brief, trivial, and occasionally tabloid-style coverage seems insufficient to support a BLP at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Dorkaholics is like other sources. They have a paid staff and editing standards.  They don't allow anyone to submit content.  They wrote an entire article about something she did.  Her actions get coverage over a long period time in many different places.  As for the documentary, it is notable enough to be reviewed, and a significant portion of it has her in it.    D r e a m Focus  07:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Dorkaholics appears to functionally be a blog, and the 2 grafs plus 2 sentences post is a superficial description of one incident, without secondary depth about her similar to the Vice 'review'. Her work has not received significant coverage over a long time in multiple independent and reliable sources, and there is hardly any secondary coverage to situate her work beyond "well known troll" and "far-right YouTube star".
 * As to the 3-part documentary series, according to the Evening Standard, she was "Theroux’s only female interviewee", and the "series also dives into Florida’s rap scene, and how the porn industry is responding to the MeToo movement". She appears in a notable series, and two reviews briefly focus on her experience with misogyny, with the Guardian also observing her apparent ongoing lack of concern over anti-semitism and racism, but this is limited secondary coverage. At this time, it appears only a few disjointed sentences can be written about her, because of the limited, superficial, and insufficient coverage available to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete As per source analysis by Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable secondary sources to pass GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 21:46, 18 January 2023 (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.