Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Travis


 * 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 07:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Judy Travis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not see how the subject of this article is notable. The article does not really explain what she does and that is because she does not really do much. The article states Travis is a "beauty and lifestyle expert" but does not go on to explain how she is an expert or what she does that makes herself an "expert". I also find the article to be somewhat biased/promotional towards the subject, specifically with the "Philanthropy" section (which is all unsourced). Some of the sources are iffy too. The first source appears to be a blog and is opinionated. The fifth and sixth sources are to the subject's YouTube channel, and the twelfth source is to a website which they used to raise money for a charity. Andise1 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm the creator of the page and have been paid to create it. The subject is a famous YouTube personality. The number of her followers and coverage on portals like CNBC and Bloomberg verifies that she is a "beauty and lifestyle expert". Please feel free to edit the page if you feel it biased towards the subject. I'll try to find and add some references in the philanthropy section as well.   Mr RD     16:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The creator of the page has been paid to create it and so will probably be biased towards the subject thus breaking WP:NPOV. Also, the subject of the article is about is not notable enough to have her own article. Tom29739 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Probably" doesn't work on Wikipedia. Neither does disclosing WP:COI and Lack of neutrality do. As far as notability is concerned, the subject easily meets WP:BASIC. I invite you to kindly raise the points where you feel the page is does not meet WP:NPOV so that they can be addressed. I tried to write every statement of the page keeping in mind Verifiability and No original research.   Mr RD     03:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The philanthropy section is still unsourced. The one source in that section is to www.familyvlogs.com which does not appear to be a reliable source. Also, the source for the "Personal life" section does not say the subject's children's names or the date in which they were born, nor does it state the date in which Travis married her husband. The article still does not clearly state what she does. As I mentioned above, the article states that she is a "beauty and lifestyle expert" but does not state what she does that would make her an "expert" (i.e. what are her YouTube videos about. Source number ten also does not appear to be a reliable source as it is from the company which represents Travis. The way in which it is used as a citation for Travis's education/beginnings is not directly in the source, rather it is in the Bloomberg article which is linked via the source. In short, a lot of the sources seem questionable and there is quite a bit of unsourced information in the article. Andise1 (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added references for the philanthropy section. Mentioning names of her children does not warranty a deletion. If you've researched carefully on her and gone through the references, you'll find that she gives beauty advises through her YouTube channel (which btw has more than 1.3 million subscribers).   Mr RD     16:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because she has 1.3 million subscribers it does necessarily mean that she is notable enough to get her own article on Wikipedia. Also, the sources in the article need to be from reliable, independent sources so not portals like CNBC and Bloomberg. Tom29739 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The amount of subscribers she has is irrelevant. There are plenty of YouTube personalities, or beauty "experts" on YouTube with over a million subscribers, so that really does not mean much. You keep talking about CNBC and Bloomberg, which are reliable sources, but they are only two sources. Those are probably (along with Tubefilter and GeekWire the only reliable sources in the article. More sources in reliable publications are needed (and also more sources in general). Also, I never said mentioning her children is why this article should be deleted, I merely said that the information about her children and their dates of birth are uncited and thus cannot stay in the article unless a citation (in a reliable source) is added. Another thing is that some of the stuff does seem promotional. In the lead section, there is a sentence which states "Judy's channels were listed among the top 1% of the YouTube's "Google Preferred" Channels For Advertisers in both "Beauty" and "Family & Children’s Interests" categories." This to me sounds awfully promotional, considering it appears to not really be of relevance to the subject nor is it a statistic that appears to be important. Andise1 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've provided many more references for her below. Regarding the uncited content, you are free to remove them to maintain neutrality to the page but remember objective promotional facts are allowed over Wikipedia per WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:ASSERT. In case of top 1%, I agree with you that it sounds promotional, it'll be better if we can write it more neutrally. What do you think?   Mr RD     07:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Delete YouTube subscribers can be bought. We need RS to establish notability. Legacypac (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ABC News, Yahoo News (Bloomberg video), CNBC, Fox News, LA Times, Huffington Post,King5 - CNBC, KY3, E Online, Metro, tubefilter, Media Post. Are these reliable sources not enough?   Mr RD     06:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  04:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  04:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  04:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  04:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draft and userfy instead as I certainly notice the listed sources but I'm still finding this questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister   talk  07:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG, sufficient independent coverage--Prisencolin (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 13:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - there's mentions by CNBC and Bloomberg, true, but that's not enough by itself. Several of the other links mentioned by the person being paid to defend this page are simply rehashes of the same Youtube video. There may be enough in the future to establish notability, but at the moment, I don't see it. Rockypedia (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are other coverage as well like here and here which cover different news. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG. I request to kindly reconsider your position based on the facts and not my affiliation with the page.   Mr RD     20:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - the sourcing is far too flimsy, as others have remarked above. It doesn't do the image of paid editors much good, I'm afraid. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion here is not about my image but whether the subject is notable or not. Based on the references that I provided earlier and now, the subject is clearly notable.   Mr RD     20:52, 26 January 2016 (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.