Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmalina


 * 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 of the debate was Keep Computerjoe 's talk 15:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Emmalina
This page is unnotable Dan200 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No more notability asserted than being a popular YouTube participant.  Not quite an A7, but nearly. Tevildo 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Despite being a reasonably well-formatted and well-thought-out page, blatant self-promotion and not notable. --Matticus78 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. See news coverage by Washington Post, Sydney Morning Herald, and Chicago Tribune. Meets WP:BIO —  The KMan  talk 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, then, unfortunately. A sad reflection on what "notability" means in the world we live in, but we merely have to record it here. Tevildo 21:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral in light of this, as article still remains strong vanity and some elements are dubiously unverifiable. Weak keep if rewritten/improved. --Matticus78 21:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)n
 * re:WIP:BIO - The only criteria on the list emmalina remotely satisfies is the last one, and I really think its very debatable whether the "web" column of a couple of newspapers describing the same phenomenon count as "multiple non-trivial published works". Dan200 10:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per TheKMan Computerjoe 's talk 21:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Honestly, will she be remembered in 2 months when her internet fad has ended? Wildthing61476 21:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak weak white knuckle keep Flash in the pan. She will be a nobody in two months time and the news articles of today will be lost to history. However this is a confusing case where Wikipedia is not a crystal ball works in reverse.--Nick Y. 00:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weakest keep ever! I just wish those newspaper writers had more idea of notability than we do... -- Jared A. Hunt
 * If she's not gonna be popular in two months, then delete the article two months from now. Until then, she consistently is watched by tens of thousands of people and merits a page. Cuttycuttiercuttiest 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Easy Keep -- covered by major news sources as above, and is routinely atop YouTube's (and thus the Internet as a whole) most-viewed videos. She reaches more people daily than almost every TV personality WP has an article about. 69.142.21.24 07:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  Definite Keep Emmalina is watched by hundreds of thousands every week. Her newest video blog "A dance and talk about professional porn VS amateur." has gotten *340,000 views in 2 days. Tim buckley 28 june 2006
 * Keep She is a popular internet culture symbol. St.isaac 16:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wow. She actually has an article? I think she is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, though the page may need some cleanup. --FlyingPenguins 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I'd say shes just as notable as most of the other people in the Internet celebrities catagory, then theres the mainstream media coverage, yes she probably will forgotten in a couple of months, but no one talks about Ellen Feiss anymore and theres an article on her. Lossenelin 07:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, she is verifiably notable and meets WP:BIO guideline. Yamaguchi先生 08:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It was a mistake to even have this page up for deletion. User:Joey Smooth
 * 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.