Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodora Lee


 * 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 sources presented fail WP:RS -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Theodora Lee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Teenage blogger / vlogger, who seems to be popular but doesn't have much in the way of reliable sourcing. A news search brings up two articles in The Sun which are totally unacceptable for a BLP, and an interview with Capetown Magazine. That's about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No sources available for inclusion in a BLP. Clear failue of WP:N. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. It will not be notable any time soon. It was part of a recent editathon, but where possibly the facilitator(s) were too busy to chek what was happening: See where it was launched on television. Unfortunately  a lot of the pages can't be used. Which is a shame. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non notable. M assiveYR   ♠  20:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails ANYBIO.  Dr Strauss   talk   21:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There is an in-depth source here, and an in-depth source here, another one here, nominated for an award here (in-depth), a mention here, a mention here, described as an African YouTube star here, another mention here, and more coverage here. YouTube and vlogging are new media and should not be dismissed simply because their stars are young. Easily passes general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Those sources appear to be mostly tabloid journalism and wholly unacceptable for an article about a living person. You shot yourself in the foot with the second and third sources. Don't ever use The Sun as a source for a BLP, it is a gutter press which has a long track-record of lying and making things up (type "justice for the 96" and "stick it up your junta" into Google). Please read WP:BLPSOURCES carefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Suppose we discount The Sun as acceptable sources (although I think that it is a RS for a story about vlogging, that is, I believe it); there are sources such as this one and others, such as this award. My point is that many of us Wikipedians are old guys, we grew up with traditional media, and we have a tendency to dismiss new media such as YouTube -- but that is what younger people look to, and vloggers such as Theodora Lee are big deals in their worlds, celebrities of a new persuasion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I dismiss YouTube as an indication of notability generally because anyone can put anything they like and say anything on it. There's no way of determining notability. We have many articles about notable YouTubers (eg: see Articles for deletion/Candice Hutchings) because they are so well known they are covered in mainstream sources too. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the content can be shoddy, but it is straightforward to determine viewership (which is what sources are pointing to); that is, the notability is not based on the quality of the content (which is something that even Wikipedians are not in a position to judge) but rather the attention (viewership, PageRank, etc, which tabloids, the media, and Wikipedians are in a position to judge).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The Sun does seem to have a grip on the sources, but I am still unconvinced regarding GNG. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  14:13, 6 August 2017 (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.