Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmalina (4th 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.  MBisanz  talk 08:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Emmalina
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The person is not notable. The page lacks WP:NPOV and WP:RS and contains a lot of peacock terms. TwentiethApril1986  (want to talk?)  00:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article does contain reliable sources, however I'm leaning towards deletion of this article. The article subject has previously requested the article be deleted also . -- Longhair\talk 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * She also made comments at her talk page about the article. See here, here and here. TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those comments were made well over 2 years ago and before the article was significantly cleaned up. JRG (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up? She complained back then that editors were invading her privacy by adding such detail as her surname within the article. Her surname is still within the article to this very day, right alongside her middle name. -- Longhair\talk 07:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well - I didn't do that. The article has been added to by unregistered users since then. We could easily take it out and that would stop the privacy concerns. JRG (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep seems to have gotten national coverage, e.g. the Washington Post, though not a great deal of it. JJL (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:1E "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a news article per se - it's an article talking about some notable early Youtube memes. These were actually put in a single article as a spinoff from the Youtube page (which I did) and which had a much better claim to notability - but people didn't like that - they put it back to the single pages such as this one. JRG (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest all these types of pages be put back into a single article like "Youtube memes" or something. Just have their name, YouTube name and a paragraph of why they were notable on that site. I don't think a whole page should have been created about her. TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't object to that. YouTube phenomena is certainly a notable subject for an article. JJL (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't object to this either - I think it would be a better way to go; while I think the subject of this article is notable there isn't any way we can get a Good Article length article out of this. Is anyone willing to do this? Longhair and the Yellow Monkey certainly aren't when I asked. JRG (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't offer to help because as far as I care, the job is already done. She's listed at List of YouTube celebrities, and that's all it warrants IMHO. Compared to the likes of Tay Zonday, this girl hasn't really done anything notable. -- Longhair\talk 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - was a notable early Youtube meme when she first started blogging (and had one of the highest viewing rates) and there are verifiable sources showing that. She indicated the security concerns posed by Youtube itself when her account got hacked. The page has been fixed up multiple times in response to previous AfDs. The practice of repeatedly nominating for deletion should stop - there have already been 3 AfDs and the page has been kept (the third AfD was overturned). At the very least this should, if deleted, rate a sentence or two on the main page indicating this. Please note also that there are other Youtube memes on Wikipedia who are just as notable as she is and whose pages have been kept previously (and don't quote me OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I am very aware of it). JRG (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. -- Longhair\talk 07:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And your point is? Why don't I quote policy for the sake of it too? JRG (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is, another AfD on this article is not disruption in any way. I said what I said, consensus can and does change. The article has problems, and we're here to discuss those problems, again, just in case consensus has changed and all... -- Longhair\talk 07:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The last AfD was about 2 years ago in which time Wikipedia has changed considerably. I don't see how the page has been kept for so long. TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete these is basically no possibility of anyone caring about this person in 2-3 years. Transient nn  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 07:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason for deletion. Why are you so in favour of deleting everything? The person is a good example of an early Youtube meme who was forced to leave the site because of privacy concerns - that's what the articles indicate. Whether she is notable or not in two years' time is of no concern. JRG (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not. Look at all the articles on my watchlist- about 5000 and a whole pile of other stuff. What has this person done that is notable? Nothing. BEing in the newspapers doesn't make one notable, else we will have all manner of car crash victims, random people who opposed a housing development and people who did well in high school competitions and got top marks in Yr 12.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 07:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But this is different - internet memes are different from a one-off car crash victim. The articles don't just cover a one-off incident. JRG (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * She was stalked at YouTube, and she's being stalked here. We aim to do no harm to living subjects, remember? -- Longhair\talk 07:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason for deletion. The page should be semi-protected and watchlisted to keep out the vandals if that's the case. Other pages get attacked by fans too but they don't get deleted. JRG (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Which "other pages" are these? Most likely they are very well known celebrities who have archived global or at least national success. That's why they don't get deleted, they have actually done something notable where millions of people know about their work. Emmalina however, was only notable inside of the YouTube community and for one thing only, a video. Even if the video was a "success", doesn't mean a wikiepedia article should be made for her. There are plenty of people on youtube who have had a "successful" video that don't have wikipedia pages. TwentiethApril1986  (want to talk?)  13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - according to my Factiva search, the October 07 edition of Wireless week magazine says that her videos were in the top ten most watched on the whole of the site over a 2006-7 period. JRG (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, more or less per Longhair. Just being at the centre of a mildly successful internet meme (that everyone seems to have more or less forgotten about now) doesn't add up to notability, in my view.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete flash-in-the-pan youtube meme that clearly had no memorability or cultural impact, even on youtube. Subject also wants it deleted, and there is no reason we shouldn't respect her wishes. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence she still wants it deleted. That was 2 years ago. You need to stop quoting that like it was made last week. JRG (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per WP:BLP1E. Notability is not temporary, so just deleting the title and content of Emmalina is out, but the usable content is more appropriately merged as part of other articles about internet fame phenomena or internet security, per BLP:1E. The bio pic should be deleted as a courtesy per her talk page wishes. I don't know for sure, but I imagine the previous Afd results concluding she warranted a bio pre-dated the creation of WP:BLP1E specifically (but WP:BLP was created in 2005). MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * She's not just notable for a one-off incident though - she had long-standing following as an early Youtube meme. And possibly still does (I can't find any 2008 figures). Thank you for being reasonable though and suggesting what everyone else should have done - that this information does belong somewhere. JRG (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * She is not an internet meme, her profile has not entered popular culture or parlance like star wars kid. She is notable for her rapid rise to attention from a virtual nobody simply because of youtube and her unique style of video, and that led to a notable act of hacking and withdrawal from Youtube. But these two incidents do no amount to a notable bio, and are arguably 1 incident per WP:BLP1E, hence why just delete is not appropriate. In terms of notability and references, she is no internet celebrity, we don't use just youtube rankings to determing that sort of notability. MickMacNee (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, clearly not notable - simply a popular user at Youtube who pulled her account for understandable reasons. Orderinchaos 08:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * More than just popular - 9th most viewed user according to sources. While OTHERSTUFFEXISTS could be quoted, it is an important consideration that the other popular Youtube memes have WP pages. As I've said earlier, I'm not against a single page for this - but the information needs to go somewhere. JRG (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Userfy please - because most people here I don't think could care less about improving the encyclopedia when policies such as WP:NOT exist for potentially less relevant articles, and I believe have simply voted keep for the sake of following others without properly researching the notability, I would like to have the content userfied to find out a better place to put all the content on this page. JRG (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Come on guys. This is an easy BLP1E situation here. A you tuber is not going to be notable unless the event was extremely huge. This wasn't. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Define huge. The event she is notable for reached reliable sources, and deserves addressing per BLP1E: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. ... In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person". MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What I'm stating is that she was known for one thing and then she was gone. Are there any news stories about her today? Is she still the focus of attention on the web? No. She did one thing and was recognized for it for a while. She is not a notable person. It's a simple one event case. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Read everything I've already said, I have not said she is a notable person. But you are reading BLP1E wrong with regard notability for an event, you said it yourself, this was a recognised (notable) event, hence it does not get wiped off the face of wikipidia in the name of 1E. And it bears repeating, notability, either as a person or for an event, does not fade away over time, what that is is fame. They are not the same. MickMacNee (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No this is silly. Then some high school kid who gets in the news for winning two different science competitions will get an article. Not notable.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 01:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Two high school science competitions? What has that got to do with anything I said? MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What he's saying is that if anyone does one event and it gets a decent amount of attention, then they would get an article by your rationale. If someone does one thing that is notable, and only one thing, that is not worthy of a page on an encyclopedia. It might be worth mentioning in a large article that encompasses many one hit wonder you tubers, but, it does not deserve it's own article. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly a flash-in-the-pan in the news world and a simple case of a person known for one thing alone. Simply being in the news to the extent she has does not make here notable. She is not part of a meme, just another youtuber recovering from their 15 minutes of infamy - Peripitus (Talk) 02:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Undead Warrior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatabullet (talk • contribs) 05:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability beyond the one event, even if that event streched over a long time.Yobmod (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not one event though - did you even read the rest of the page? She was in the top ten youtube viewings for several years. Hardly "one event". And as I have said before I have no problem with a single article. JRG (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a disappointing article. Considering it's well-written and reasonably large, that's really saying something. I thought of nominating it a while ago, but I held off because of the inevitable "reliably sourced" comments. I'm sorry, but this is the first article I've read that has told me "there's nothing remotely interesting about the subject". Since the reliable sources are there, a blurb in List of YouTube celebrities would properly sum up the topic. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The point being the result should then correctly be merge, not delete, as people don't seem to understand in here. If you delete it, then typing in Emmalina into wikipedia will get you nowhere, not List of YouTube celebrities or anywhere else that the sourced information belongs, per WP:BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, but Emmalina is NOT a notable person so typing her name in Wikipedia should not take you anywhere. If she were notable, then she would be able to retain a page, but, her one event is not a notable one anymore. It was notable for a small while, but not anymore. And, if the result is delete, you can always redirect the page ti the list of youtube celebrities. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion only - but like most people on this page you haven't done a scrap of research - you just go straight off your own thinking. People spent time putting in work finding verifiable articles that show she had more than just "flash-in-the-pan" notability - but despite this good work it has to be spoiled by people who couldn't be bothered helping and improving the encyclopedia. You have no right to say things like that. JRG (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This article reads like nothing more than a myspace profile. What screams at me when I read this is "Why is this person on Wikipedia?". --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * NO offense, but I have the right to say things like that. It's not degrading to anyone in terms of notability guidelines on Wikipedia. She is not notable. It's simple. Tell me how she passes WP:RS. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:18, 18 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.