Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelsey Impicciche


 * 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 as rough consensus is there are sufficient sources. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Kelsey Impicciche

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG; her time producing content for Buzzfeed confers no notability on this YouTuber, coverage is entirely incidental. And, incidentally, fails WP:WEB too. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Websites,  and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * are you claiming the sources in the article don't meet the requirements of WP:N? If so, could you briefly explain why.  I'm seeing an article that is solely about her (so certainly not incidental) and others (e.g. ) with a few paragraphs.  We also have an interview which seems pretty detailed .  Hobit (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I certainly am. The article you link to contains a para mentioning Impicciche's work on the 100 baby challenge at Buzzfeed, while the interview is an interview and doesn't contribute towards establishing notability. The other sources are, as I mention, incidental. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * keep This article is focused on her in the context of fashion. The USA Today article has 3 paragraphs on her as does this one.  Both of those are in the context of the 100-baby challenge, but I don't see why that matters.  There are also two solid interview articles, so we have plenty of sources to write an article around. Hobit (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per sources detailed by Hobit. the Gamerevolution piece is entirely on her completion of the 100 baby challenge. Also coverage in New York Times.-- Mvqr (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The Gamerevolution article is solely focussed on Impicciche. It does discuss her work at Buzzfeed, but it is primarily about her and so not 'incidental'. While that is the only article (IMHO) that by itself constitutes reliable, secondary, and in-depth coverage, the other articles cited in the article and listed by those above constitute the "" per WP:NBIO. While the interviews are interviews and not secondary, that non-secondariness, as I understand it, applies only to the interview itself and not (necessarily) to the pre-amble, which can be counted towards demonstrating notability. Also, WP:WEB is totally 'incidental', to borrow y'all's phrasing, as it is "". And I'm pretty sure people don't count as web content?? If we're gonna turn to SNGs, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT are much more relevant. I would argue Impicciche meets WP:CREATIVE by criteria 3 for her work on the 100-baby challenge series and Spark'd and seems to meet criteria 1 in The Sims (and possibly the larger gaming) community, as demonstrated by the fact that she was a judge on Spark'd. She also appears to meet WP:ENT 1 if we consider her work on Buzzfeed to be a notable performance (which it seems to be, especially that the nominator seems to be implying the coverage is only about her work at Buzzfeed) in addition to her 'role'/'performance' on Spark'd. (disclaimer: I started the page.) Samsmachado (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2022 (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.