Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safiya Nygaard (2nd 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.  Sandstein  10:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Safiya Nygaard
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Inadequate independent in-depth coverage to satisfy biographical notability. Most of the references are her own, or to unreliable sources such as Facebook. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, see Articles for deletion/Safiya Nygaard, which came to the same conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 04:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 04:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 04:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I originally added db-g4 since the article had already been deleted via AfD. It was removed by the editor previously heavily involved in creating the draft, but who is not technically the creator; if I'm relying on WP:IAR too much, feel free to undo this. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC) (corrected template link at 00:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - It looks like G4 to me, but I tried to tag it and the nomination was removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * CommentI am not the creator of this page, but I did make multiple edits and worked on it until I decided that it was ready to be published.

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is now a fully-fledged article. Safiya Nygaard is YouTuber with over 3 million subscribers, and there are YouTubers with far fewers who have Wikipedia pages. I understand that there may be issues with this page, but I have improved it from its original draft so that it is publish-ready. Instead of deleting it senselessly, it would be more ideal to work to improve it.

I read that sources from the subject themselves are not reliable, but when it comes to Internet Personalities, their own, self-created content - be in videos, Tweets, Instagram posts, or information found on their official Facebook pages - is the most reliable kind of source we have. Most YouTuber pages make reference to social media and self-created content - I don't see why this one cannot.


 * Comment - User:Starklinson appears to be suggesting that a different standard of notability be applied to Internet personalities. The means to discuss a different policy for Internet personalities would be at Village pump (policy), possibly followed by a Request for Comments to the notability guidelines.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not see how this page does not meet the requirements to remain a page on Wikipedia. Essentially every single line and piece of information is cited, which is more than I can say for other articles I have both seen and worked on. It is in the correct format for a YouTuber. If wish to make further edits or improve the article in any way, feel free to. But I do not, personally, think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starklinson (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't meet wikipedia guidelines because it solely relies on first party self published sources with no reliable third party independent sources to show notability. We don't make articles on YouTubers based on how on how many subscribers they have, we make them if they show notability which this article does not have. This is the same reason why the article was deleted the first time around, the article still presents with the same issue. TheDeviantPro (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - No third party sources that establishes notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Starklinson - How does this version of the article differ from the version that was deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's more than three times as long and has completely different sourcing. It's even worse sourcing, though. —Cryptic 05:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, sources are mostly self-published, and the remainder don't amount to significant coverage. —Cryptic 05:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am not saying that a different standard of notability should be applied to articles about Internet personalities. I am simply asking how, for example, a 'Draw My Life' video or a 'Boyfriend Tag' video would not count as a reliable source when these kinds of sources give detailed information about the Internet personality by the Internet personality. How can we find a source more reliable than that? I have seen other articles use Tweets, videos, and information garnered from social media by the Internet personalities themselves as sources. I am simply taking example from what I have witnessed on this website and asking what kinds of sources can be used if not those. I am not suggesting that articles like these should be held to a lesser standard when it comes to notability than others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starklinson (talk • contribs) 05:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not that self-published sources are necessarily unreliable; it's that they're not evidence of notability. See here for the long version. —Cryptic 05:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Draftify moved Draft:Safiya Nygaard to Safiya Nygaard on 26 December 2017 with the edit summary "Complete and ready for publication".


 * That was incorrect because only four of the twenty-three inline citations are independent of Nygaard, and of those four: one is a passing mention in a student newspaper, and three don't mention the subject. This is a problem because articles are supposed to be based mainly on secondary sources, with primary sources used to a lesser extent and, to avoid original research, carefully. It is also a problem because notability can only be demonstrated by significant coverage in independent sources.


 * Returning this to Draft is a good alternative to deletion because the topic is plausibly notable. Quick searches found some coverage in reliable sources, especially women's magazines and media that report on vloggers: Two of these were published after the first deletion discussion. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have started adding more reliable sources into the article. - User:Starklinson —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep notable YouTube personality. The article could use some work, but enough secondary sources establishing notability exist. Sro23 (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the sourcing is too heavily not reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable per GNG and Notability (people). Refbombed with primary sources. Many references to the same source (at least 10), per above comments of "first party self-published sources", like the YouTube sources from the subject, might count as providing referencing for content, but all count as one for notability, and content is not the issue here. Prima facie it looks good and also makes "digging through them" harder. Those that are not YouTube are mainly advertising articles. When you click on them you have to wait for a pop-up ad, read it, or wait for a time period to delete. This is advertising and annoying. Refbombing is a good tactic because some (and those that don't check) will think it is referenced enough to be notable. Otr500 (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional comments: A subject that is "plausibly notable", especially a BLP, should be looked at very closely. I saw the article, AFD tag, then the references. My first thought was, "WOW! Twenty-one references". Then I proceeded to the AFD and read down. I found a user attempting to save an article (not a bad thing), that included arguments of other stuff exists, and six other references. The first three are about quitting Buzzfeed, the next two are magazine type articles on melting lip-stick, and the last about see-through pants. The references on the article include 10 references on the article are from the subject, reference # 11 Boldly, Ladylike and #13 BuzzFeed, Ladylike is junk, two are duplicates not primarily about the subject. Alright, I am tired and a review of the sources are "not" enough (14 of the 21 are self- or refbombs) with reliability giving notability". Just a bunch of references either primary, or several placed to make an article look notable. Can of worms to start including every v-logger with followers (how many is subjective and for MANY future considerations) on the internet. NOT COOL. Otr500 (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2018 (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.