Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Violet

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. postdlf (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Violet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article appears to fail WP:BIO. The nearly blank IMDB page, a mention in a Forbes article, and a bit on Attack of the show seem to be the best sources available. In my opinion these do not meet the "significant coverage" portion of the guideline, and the remaining sources are not reliable and/or independent of the subject. I did not see anything better than what is already referenced in the article available online. VQuakr (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, the article does lack sourcing, but I think that there is enough uncited coverage to warrant an article. I can't find the Forbes article you mentioned, but in the article itself there is the New York Post article and the Attack of the Show feature. I would consider two different news features significant. Both news articles also noted the popularity of her channel, which supports No. 2 of WP:BIO's criteria for entertainers - "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I'm not sure how notable the coverage by Ology.com is, but the content for that source is by the editorial staff, not a user. I did not realize initially that the Breathecast article comes from a PR Firm, so that makes that one more questionable. Outside of those articles, here is what I found: A mention of her "Wizard Love" video with Heyhihello in CantonRep.com, another mention of same video on Screencrave.com, a short mention of her work with Family Force 5 in Cross Rhythms, and an announcement of a tour she took part in on MLive.com. There's also a reference to her in by the opinion editor for a reliable student newspaper, Gateway. I'm actually surprised that she has not garnered more news coverage considering the popularity of her channel and the quantity of her work.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nominator. A bunch of youtube videos does not confer notability or a large following. Plenty of people are on imdb with empty pages and has youtube videos with more views and are not notable. In the "sources" cited above, does the also mentioned random local band heyhihello has a wikipedia page? Nope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.33.28 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Whether heyhihello has a wiki article is irrelevant. One, just because they don't have an article does not mean they aren't notable. Two, notability is not conferred simply through association, but through reliable coverage of that association. Whether heyhihello is notable or not, the coverage of their collab with Violet is. Whether that source when combined with the others listed is enough to give an entire article on Violet notability, that is the issue at hand.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of sourcing and secondary source coverage in references. — Cirt (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Having multiple YouTube videos does not mean that you are an notable person. 141.218.228.19 (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Yes a bunch of youtube videos does not mean you are notable. (Also the presence or absense of youtube videos does not mean you are not.) BUT millions of views and hundreds of thousands of likes and subscribers does mean notability IMHO. (Some TV shows had only a few million view ratings has huge cult following them (Firefly anyone?).) How do you define notability, and how much people do you want to piss off by deleting this or any other article? I think people who want to delete pages should post their home address so they can measure notability by the hate mail:) Deleting a page is really easy and destructive (when it's not offending anyone). Collecting all these information takes time and effort. It probably will improve with time if you let it. She is also not dead yet, so she can become more notable. There is already a large collection of information posted it would be such a waste to throw it out ( and later try to collect them back again). OK, I understand that we do not want to have 7 billion articles about living people. Still I do think she is notable enough. Based on wikipedia's guidelines: "person has created" "well-known work, or collective body of work": Define well-known, but her video's views suggest a lot of people know her work. "Has a large fan base": what is large? A million subscribers is large enough? I think it should be. --Szir (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Szir - "How do you define notability...?" By the external criteria at WP:BIO: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Which sources have you identified as significant in their coverage, reliable, and intellectually independent? VQuakr (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree that some content of the article needs either sourcing or should be removed if not sourced, but in general it's a better sourced and structured article than most of wikipedia's smaller articles are. Also, big youtube personalities (and if you like her/know her or not, she is one for a long time now) are part of our modern culture now and for that reason have to be included into an encyclopedia. Just because the IMDb page is "nearly blank" doesn't mean anything since IMDb doesn't cover much of youtube. There are also articles from Geekology, New York Post, PR Newswire and The Christian Post (again, like it or not, that doesn't matter). -- ColdCase (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It's about time Wikipedia starts giving recognition to web sites and web personnalities. Right now, if you have recorded an album on a big label that only 100 persons bought qualifies you as notable, while being known by millions just like her doesn't, simply because the notability factor isn't from traditional sources. The simple fact that most people on the web prefer consulting Wikipedia over any other media for information about anything should be reason enough to broaden the spectre of inclusion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.51.218.38 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.