Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Chamberlain

Emma Chamberlain

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Emma Chamberlain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not sure if person is notable enough and article has many issues including promotional content and unsourced contend and a short lead section Abote2 (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. I worry that this AfD will be plagued with vandalism in a similar way to the article. However, I believe that this article should be kept per WP:GNG. A previous version of the article can be viewed here that has no unsourced or promotional content. The sources in the article, along with many that can be found with a Google News search, show notability. If you think the lead is too short, I suggest you WP:FIXIT. MarkZusab (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Passes WP:BASIC with significant secondary RS coverage. Subject is clearly notable with multiple awards. Article has been cleaned up and more content added. It also now has an expanded lede. Subject easily meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment: Just count Special:WhatLinksHere/Emma_Chamberlain, and I'm far from sure that I've wikilinked all plain text occurrences of the name. A complete AfD for what is in essence one bogus Social Blade reference makes no sense, just remove this bad reference and whatever it is supporting. The Sixteen other references are okay, and the living person is meanwhile 18 years old. For "not sure" check out WP:BEFORE, this is enwiki, absolutely everything has an essay, a guideline, or a policy. –84.46.52.65 (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep clearly meets WP:BASIC. Problems describes are endemic to WP pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• DELETE - This is pretty much WP:PROMO. The coverage is trivial and despite its quantity there is a complete absence of depth; this is reflected in the page's contents. Claims such as the itunes podcast one are unsupported and seemingly promotional in nature (please advise which 50 countries). I looked at several of the articles which allegedly link back to this one and could not find any such links. Perhaps I misunderstand exactly what the 'whatlinkshere' function does but maybe someone can explain. Perhaps this is better suited for wikinews. It is not encyclopedic. There is not a single sentence in the article that is. ogenstein (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think here it might be useful to have a detailed analysis of the sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. There is coverage that satisfies WP:GNG, and the promotional material has been removed recently. wumbolo ^^^ 12:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Can you please advise exactly which coverage satisfies GNG? I'm really not seeing any reliable sources for this. Thanks. Adding signing. ogenstein (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Response - I guess I do not understand your statement, "I'm really not seeing any reliable sources for this." They are referenced in the subject's article. Here are five: Forbes, Seventeen magazine, People magazine, The Michigan Daily newspaper and DEADLINE - all third-party, reliable sources. You might try looking again. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment -@Bbb23:I know this user:Mothman. He is using multiple account. He is a new user. He writing wrong Policy information all of afD negative comments also he don’t know which article eligible for notable or not. Please check this user. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.35.115 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Meets general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. This is another case of an internet celebrity who clearly deserves an article per WP:ENT (it would be hard to argue that 7.9 million subscribers isn't a "large fan base"), but who hasn't been covered extensively in traditional media. In this case, I believe there's just enough coverage that the subject passes GNG (Forbes, People), although more sources are needed for verifiability purposes. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, meets WP:ENTand WP:BIO, has a large "fan" base and has significant coverage by reliable sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)