Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Bella Earl


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Lucy Bella Earl

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

Having a big fan following is irrelevant. Not a notable Youtuber, unable to find independent coverage. Juggyevil (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, Women,  and Internet.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added a source from The Times. There also seems to be plenty of global coverage of her and her channel in Google News, eg https://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20170426/422062043655/english-with-lucy-negocio-clases-gratuitas-ingles-youtube.html, https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/teacher-shares-guide-comparing-british-american-australian-slang/news-story/7b8bcbd9b6b942e225f8143509221ea4 and https://www.idntimes.com/hype/entertainment/muna-waroh/potret-lucy-bella-earl-youtuber-inggris-yang-selalu-tampil-menawan-c1c2 etc Piecesofuk (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment news.com.au has no byline, idntimes it is written by the contributor, is kind of good one but again, I can't see any journalist commentary in it and the quotes of Lucy Bella Earl is the proof of non independent coverage.Juggyevil (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete we do not have sourcing that actually rises to the level to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * comment There is even a scholarly in-depth analysis of some aspects of the content of the channel - most likely you were not aware of: English phonological assimilation applied in “English with Lucy” channel on youTube. There are reviews in respected sources: reread the article and follow the links provided. --Kggucwa (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - IMO sources such as The Times and BBC are of value and, let me say, there is a lot of global coverage, out of which may find such a recomendation 6 Best YouTube Channels to Learn Grammar in 2022 from these reviewers interesting. As far as bylines are concerned, consult this text by a senior editor at The Economist, please. --Kggucwa (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, but none of the sources are helpful, in-depth or independent. Sage Journal is itself having byline and Wikipedia is not Sage Journal.Juggyevil (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mind removing this discussion from the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions? It is education and not entertainment that Lucy Bella Earl has been aiming at for six years. --Kggucwa (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Times, Business Insider and BBC articles are strong secondary sources, she's being used as a source by other media outlets from the looks of the NZ Herald piece and some other UK papers. Hard to define YouTube notability in regards to subscriber count, but 350k seems fairly strong. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - update - Today, the number of subscribers is well in excess of 350k. It is 7.62 million, actually. I agree: 7.62 million seems fairly strong, indeed, and the said Wikipedia article deserves a Keep. --Kggucwa (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete due to the lack of sources that discuss her directly and in-depth, which from what I can tell none of them do. In the meantime subscriber count doesn't really matter. For all we know she got them through a click farm or something. Even if she didn't, there's zero in the guidelines about the notability of YouTubers being based on subscriber count. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * comment - erm... the Business Insider article is 800-plus words specifically about her, in-depth. The BBC article is also specifically about her, though shorter. The Times article is specifically about her, though paywalled. I'd strongly disagree with your first statement. Agreed that subscriber count can be manipulated, but it is certainly an indicator of notability, if not directly referred to in the guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 800-plus words of an interview and some of those 800 words is her lamenting about the creative process in general and other YouTube creators. So no, it's not really "800 words specifically about her." Really most of it isn't about her, specifically or otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Times, BBC, and Business Insider provide obvious in-depth coverage passing WP:GNG. Opposition appears to come from people who mistakenly believe that GNG-notability should be based on some evaluation of how important the occupation of the subject is rather than on the actual level of coverage of the subject herself in reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Her work is the subject of at least one academic paper from an Indonesian University, which is obviously independent and in depth, she is featured in the BBC plus the Business Insider and The Times, I find it easy to say keep for this one, based on her meeting the general notability criteria. CT55555 (talk) 01:35, 6 March 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.