Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caitlin Hill


 * 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.  So Why  07:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Caitlin Hill

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No real notability of this person. I'd say WP:BLP1E. Most sources given only mention her name and when she has been the subject of a report, its only because of her YouTube videos. Again, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted" TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  06:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   --  TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  06:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   --  TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  06:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hill is notable one of YouTube's early superstars, and has a number of reliable sources to that effect.  It's not just a single event, but rather, Hill was a notable figure for some time on the Internet.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A superstar? Really? I think you'll have to get a citation for that. I don't believe she "was a notable figure for some time on the Internet". Another flash in the pan YouTuber. TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  11:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. If nothing else, the fact that she was one of the handful of original You-Tubers offered Partner status should be reason enough to keep.  On top of this fact, her continued subscribership ranks her among the top You-Tube channels.  Look it up if you need citations - it's easy enough to check this information from You-Tube.
 * She also has a continued presence outside You-Tube as evidenced by her StickAm channel and her real-life activities. The article may need some additional citations and some work, but the subject of Caitlin Hill AKA "TheHill88" should be kept as encyclopedic based on her effect on / reflection of society.  Like it or not, this girl IS a reflection of young people today, and for this article that should be kept....  NDCompuGeek (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Being "one of the handful of original You-Tubers offered Partner status" is not enough for a keep, being on Stickam is hardly notable and she has had no effect on society. What's your point about her being a "reflection of young people today"? TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  16:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Partner status thing should certify notability. She has an exceptionally large presence on You-Tube, and it is verified by this offer.  The reference to her Stickam account was also mentioned with her other activities.  I just meant it as an easily referenceable example.  As for the reflection comment, it's pretty much just the way it is.  I believe that this girl's videos are a representation of what most youth may believe.  No citation available (it's my opinion, for pete's sake!☺), but there you have it.  I'm not trying to be ornery or anything (sorry if it comes out that way)....
 * Not to mention, your argument for deletion is based on the idea that it was one particular event that she is "famous" (pseudo-famous?) for. It is an ongoing thing, not one particular event.  Her popularity continues to grow, and she continues to do real-life activities that can be notable (and probably should be included in the article).  Kind of like saying the girl that played "Stephanie Tanner" is famous for one particular event just because she played on that TV show - what else has she done?  That show (or this website) provides the context of her notability in and of itself.  (Sorry, it's what my 4-year-old daughter is watching on TV right now ☺ ....).  NDCompuGeek (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You say "She has an exceptionally large presence on You-Tube". This is not true. She is pretty much unknown on YouTube now and she may have had a large presence on the site when it first started but as of now, she has no large presence on there. You mean Jodie Sweetin who played "Stephanie Tanner" and according to her IMDb page, she has done more film/tv work since being on the show that made her famous. Can't really compare someone who has been on an ABC show to someone who had minor success on YouTube for a couple of home-made videos and hasn't moved on from that. TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  01:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * However, for the purposes of Wikipedia notability, the guideline is that once notable, always notable. Notability is not lost with the passage of time.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

She might be notable under WP:ENTERTAINER because she "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I can't find anything else that she meets on WP:PEOPLE though. TwentiethApril1986  (want to talk?)  02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC) When it comes to offline activities, she will be appearing in the remake of Plan 9 From Outer Space. Sdddlt (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC) — Sdddlt (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. According to WP:N, both sources should meet the requirements of "significant coverage" and "independent of the subject". Sdddlt (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. YouTube is no "particular event" but a distribution channel, just like TV. The ongoing shift of mainstream media from TV to online video indicates the importance of YouTube and online video in general. Hill has been one of the most popular content providers in late 2006 and 2007, and she was one of the initial 30 YouTube partners. Thus she certainly played an influential role in the early days of YouTube when it all started. In fact, she still plays an important role in the online video world since she is the chief creative officer of a New York based media company, exclusively focussing on online video content. And (no quotable source for this one) in order to work in the USA she received a 01 Performers Visa, which most likely makes her the first person ever to receive such a visa for being "famous" on the internet.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   --  TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  04:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete source mainly from Youtube and blogs neither of which meet reliable or verifiable independent source requirements, other sources are passing mentions so fails WP:N as being the subject of multiple independent sources. Gnangarra 02:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The Age and Courier Mail references (1 each) would appear reliable secondary sources and are specific to her -- Paul foord (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response the Age article deosnt meet the requirements of WP:N of significant coverage only half the article is about Hill. The Courier Mail article again isnt significant coverage, its this lack of significant coverage in reliable sources thats the issue. Gnangarra 03:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Query these are the articles cited - I am puzzled, they may not be large articles but both appear to be specifically about Hill -- Paul foord (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Swanwick, Tristan "Local talent goes global" The Courier Mail, July 28, 2007
 * Hutcheon, Stephen "Caitlin raps her way to YouTube success" theage.com.au, September 4, 2006
 * Response the Age article features a picture of Caitlin Hill and has a word count ratio of 390 to 129 towards Hill. The 129 words not covering Hill are providing background information. The courier mail article also features a picture of Caitlin Hill and covers her exclusively.
 * comment neither article is significant coverage both as highlighted by Paul foorddiff are reliable secondary sources, there is no significant coverage in a reliable source to assert notability. Gnangarra 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So there are a couple of sources where Hill is being mentioned, plus the two already discussed sources which are exclusively covering her story. Sdddlt (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * keep There appear to be sufficient reliable sources about her that she meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment where are the reliable sources that meet the WP:N requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject Gnangarra 03:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See Sdddlt's remarks above. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok so there is nothing else beyond two secondary sources to assert notability. Gnangarra 14:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Two sources. One, two. Two is multiple. So we have multiple independent reliable sources. Anything else is gravy. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * yep there is two secondary sources possessing some quality but neither(even combined) provide significant coverage to assert notability. Gnangarra 15:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You made that claim above and it simply isn't convincing. Both articles focus on Hill. Both articles consist of only material about Caitlin or material providing background. There's more than enough coverage there to be significant coverage. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Age article doesnt focus in Hill it focus is Youtube, and gives some information on Hill to establish her credentials to make comments on YouTube. 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There are other sources where Hill is being mentioned: The Darfur Wall Introduces Advocates Program newswiretoday.com, "Top YouTube videographers descend on San Francisco" CNET, How to Win Friends and Influence YouTube flakmag.com. Additionally there is her 60_minutes TV appearance, which can be found on several video sites, and a not yet aired segment on Today_Tonight (see Blog of Angela Thomas)
 * response all have passing mentions, crystal ball ref, and blogs. The discussed stories as discussed are secondary sources. the issue is notability and there isnt any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability.
 * Response Yes, these additional sources don't cover her exclusively. But you can add them on top of the two exclusive sources. And I still don't understand your concerns regarding notability and significant coverage. WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. The last sentence of this definition says that exclusivity superseds triviality. couriermail and theAge are both exclusive on Hill. And according to the footnote-example #1 in WP:GNG-"Significant coverage", her coverage in CNET, Flakmag and 60Minutes are arguably non-trivial.Sdddlt (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Reasons:  1) All the solid arguments listed above.  2)  She's hott.  (That was fun!  Back to my political bubble...)  Ichormosquito (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2008 (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.