Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassey Ho (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Prematurely closing this BLP AfD per SNOW; it seems clear that BLP1E is deemed to apply, and there is no need to let this linger--and I say this with the fiat of the creator. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Cassey Ho
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Even with the very minor Target "controversy," this article fails the significant coverage requirements for Wikipedia notability. Articles about her are sparse, usually mentioning her in passing or extremely briefly. Other sources are self-referential from personal blogs or websites. Recommend delete.  Veggies  ( talk ) 05:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'd have waited until this was off the main page to nominate, considering how several thousand people may be exposed to this AFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Her notability does not derive from the Target controversy. It is one factor. She won a Shorty Award. In the Asian community, she is considered a rising star.  She has been covered in depth in several reliable sources.  Two of the sixteen sources are from her website, cited together with other sources, so none of the content establishing notability relies on personal blogs or websites. I am One of Many (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Three "sources" are primary sources from her blog. HUGE red-flag. Remember what WP:SPS says: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
 * One (The LA Times) is an instructional blurb on how to do exercises. Not at all about the subject.
 * Another source, (Raine magazine) while potentially solid, does not yet have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by the reliable source requirements.
 * The sources with the most inline citations are from the same publisher (Forbes) and the same author (Humphrey) with 10 of the 28 footnotes cited.
 * Three sources are nearly replicates (Fitness - "cassey ho", ABC - "More People Getting Rich...", and Daily Mail - "How we're cashing in...") about her followership and income, NOT about her. This seems like puffery.
 * One (SF Chinatown) only lists her as a beauty pagent winner--not anything "in depth." --  Veggies  ( talk ) 07:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply
 * The blog sources are not used to establish notability in this article, so there is no violation of policy if you read the policy carefully.
 * You dismiss three sources reliable sources that are about her notability: she is a successful social media entrepreneur. They are written by different people.
 * You ignore the fact that she won a major award in her field of notability covered by Fox News, which supports the notability of the articles you dismiss.
 * She is recognized in the Asian community as a rising Asian entrepreneur as covered in Asian Fortune.
 * Winning a beauty pagent in high school and identifying the photoshopped thigh gap are interesting facts about her, but are not about her notability. Her notability concerns her success as a social media entrepreneur.
 * To argue that she is not notable, you have to dismiss he winning a shorty award report by Fox News, her coverage as a social Media entrepreneur in Forbes, ABC News, Fitness Magazine, the Daily Mail, Asian Fortune, and Raine Magazine.
 * I note that if she were a porn actress, winning a major award in her field would have been sufficient for notability.
 * Finally, her DYK received over 5,000 hits, way more than any other DYK in her set and way more than is typical. The reason is that she is notable to the general public who read Wikipedia.
 * I am One of Many (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * If her notability is established around her "social media entrepreneur" status, I'm not seeing much aside from a single Forbes writer's work and a number of minor references as part of greater surveys of health and internet topics. And if you're dismissing the "thigh gap" thing as not establishing her notability, it undermines one of the Forbes pieces that was written in the wake of and about Ho's involvement in that non-event.
 * Part of the article is directly on the thigh gap incident, the rest is on her as a social media fitness person. I am One of Many (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The three pieces I cited are not at all about her except in mentioning her as a media personality with an unremarkable income and some following online. Also note that she fails all four criteria for creative professionals: She's not "widely cited by peers or successors." So far as I'm aware she hasn't come up with any "significant new concept, theory or technique." She has not created any "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." And her works haven't "become a significant monument, ... been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, ... won significant critical attention..."
 * Not everyone notable in Wikipedia fall under Academics, Creative professionals, Crime victims and perpetrators, Entertainers, Pornographic actors and models, Military personnel, politicians, and sports personalities. If people under these categories were all that could have BLPs in Wikipedia, then Pope Francis would have to be sent to AfD. We have other articles for which the person is question is notable because they are an entrepreneur, for example:Evan Williams (entrepreneur),  Jerry Yang (entrepreneur), David Brown (entrepreneur), Fred Harvey (entrepreneur), Peter Jones (entrepreneur), so being an entrepreneur is an established area of notability on Wikipedia. I am One of Many (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: Of the living people you cited, one is a BBC host, one is CEO of Yahoo!, and the other is the founder of Blogger and former CEO of Twitter. If you're trying to make some kind of argument based on equity, I think Ms. Ho has a bit more to go before she ranks among these people. --  Veggies  ( talk ) 02:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The people you mention have significant contributions, however, and have/had massive fortunes. Having a tiny company that makes "six figures" isn't noteworthy; more than ten million people in the USA alone make that much, and they don't all have Wikipedia entries. 2601:D:CB80:97:5C72:D2C0:3DEC:E877 (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article in Asian Fortune is not dedicated to her or much about her contributions, but rather a brief blurb about her as part of a group of Asian internet celebrities.
 * Three people are featured in this article as paradigms of Asians being successful on the Internet, Kim, Ho, and Panahon. This is exactly the kind of article that establishes notability by making comparisons and picking out the main figures in the field. I am One of Many (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't self-reference Wikipedia hits for notability. --  Veggies  ( talk ) 09:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case, over 6,000 hits, which is rare for a DYK, is directly related to her notability as a social media entrepreneur. We got that many hits because people want to know about her and providing information for notable people is one of the jobs of Wikipedia.I am One of Many (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I, personally, clicked the link because it seemed so un-noteworthy and that made me wonder why it was on Wikipedia at all. I wonder how many other hits were a result of this very oddity.  2601:D:CB80:97:5C72:D2C0:3DEC:E877 (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear how you think WP:BLP1E applies here? Winning a high school beauty pagent or finding the thigh gap on the Target website have nothing to do with her notability as I see it. They are interesting facts about her. Her notability is as a social media entrepreneur.  Because of that, she did get press for the thigh gap incident, but she wouldn't have without her notability as a social media entrepreneur. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Creating some fitness videos and posting them on YouTube does not make you notable, even if you do call it being a social media entrepreneur and have a six-figure income. An award for twitter content is neither well-known nor significant.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue here is WP:BIO. Why do these sources fail to establish notability?
 * Forbes Covers her as a social media fitness entrepreneur.
 * Forbes Covers primarily over the Thigh gap incident.
 * Fox News Singes her and another person out for winning an award (Shorty Awards).
 * Asian Fortune Covers her as a rising Asian star on the Internet.
 * Fitness for wining their Fitterati Blogger Award, which I did not mention in the article.
 * Daily Mail Covers her as a social media fitness entrepreneur.
 * ABC News Covers her as a social media fitness entrepreneur.
 * Raine Magazine Covers her as a Fitness Entrepreneur.
 * I am One of Many (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment How about you answer the criticisms that have been raised rather than continually repeat your points. --  Veggies  ( talk ) 15:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply I did answer you criticisms. WP:SPS does not apply because notability is not based on primary sources or blogs, but the sources listed above. I understand that you don't like Raine Magazine as a reliable source, but that does not refute the other reliable sources.  I can only argue based on policy, and to show that she does not meet notability as a social media entrepreneur, one has to argue that the sources do not establish this.  I am One of Many (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply Be aware, as I stated, that she completely fails the criteria of notability for creative artists. --  Veggies  ( talk ) 19:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The key point is whether Shorty Award constitutes a major awards that would constitute her notability with an article in Wikipedia. I'd say this is debatable. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is part of establishing her notability. The award was in the area of claimed notability.  But is the award notable?  Well we do have a Wikipedia article on the awards: Shorty Awards.  They are also covered by reliable sources, which looks to establish notability:
 * Huffington Post
 * Wall Street Journal
 * Washington Post
 * CBS News
 * MSN News
 * NASA
 * The Guardian
 * I am One of Many (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment That certainly establishes the notability for an article on the Shorty Awards. The question is whether this notability ipso facto transfers onto the recipients. --  Veggies  ( talk ) 19:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * True but we do have other articles with notability tied to these awards: StockTwits, Internet Killed Television, BNO News, Athletes for a Cure, Rachael Dunlop, Mrs Stephen Fry, and Epic Meal Time. This at least establishes a precedent. I am One of Many (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, most of the Shorty Awards recipients do not have their own articles. And the ones you've listed above (except for Mrs Stephen Fry who is quite shaky in my view) have been reviewed in-depth by multiple reliable secondary sources. --  Veggies  ( talk ) 19:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes, most Shorty Awards winners do not have their own articles. As I said above, it is one consideration for notability.  As with the articles cited above, Cassey Ho also has multiple secondary sources on her notability as a social media in the area of fitness. I am One of Many (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A search on "Shorty awards" reveals that over 100 articles on Wikipedia cite them I am One of Many (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Personal and Career in social fitness have nothing potentially noteworthy.  The "identified an ad" does not seem to meet the requirements for noteworthiness, especially since there seems to be no clear evidence that she was the only one who noticed the poor Photoshop.  Winning a minor award is not itself automatically noteworthy just because the award itself has a Wikipedia page.  Her winning an award might belong in only one place: In the list of winners of that award on the Shorty Awards page. 2601:D:CB80:97:5C72:D2C0:3DEC:E877 (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E - Sorry but simply posting on YT and getting a non notable award doesn't make you notable. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  16:57, 29 April 2014 (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.