Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communitychannel

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communitychannel

Delete.Non-notable blog. Grahame (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established, fails WP:WEB. WWGB (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disclosure: I have added significant content to this page. Difficulty in establishing legitimacy due to use of new, more ephemeral media (Youtube) which I recognize is cause for caution. However, since the original delete recommendation, this article has been substantiated with references to several mainstream news media outlets. This page is intentionally not a fan page to Ms. Tran, but is descriptive of the Video Blog communitychannel, its techniques, recurring characters and influence outside the online world. Notability has been established and referenced. Suggestion below that "page exists solely to generate 'viral' notability" is countered by communitychannel's pre-existing viewer size, longevity (2 years), consistent postings and themes and acceptance as legitimate and respectable by mainstream media. ----aaftabj-- (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia. Requested copyright permission for video screen captures from Communitychannel for wikipedia page----aaftabj-- (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poor references/external links by YouTube (which is inappropriate links/spam, according to XLinkBot). Versus22_talk 07:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep ~~no evidence of notability, no reliable sources for claims,~~ sources added demonstrate notability, and no longer written as a fan page/ad. JJL (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see this article from the Sydney Morning Herald, which notifies her popularity in Youtube. Doesn't that make her blog notable? Also, just because I'm an IP user doesn't mean I'm not aware about Wikipedia guidelines. 123.2.177.50 (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I did a little research on her tonight and found some legitimate articles about her showing that she is a significant YouTuber. Here is a link to a NewTeeVee article on her:[1] She was featured on G4tv as one of the "Women of the Web" on October 24, 2008.[2] She had been featured before but I don't know what date that was. She made an appearance on the September 22, 2008 episode of the show The Hack Half Hour.[3] She was also featured in an article in PC World from October 24, 2007.[4] I think these sources show that she has some significance in the wider world and it is premature to delete her article. Instead, I believe it can be improved. This article has only existed for a couple days so I think it should be given a chance to grow.-Schnurrbart (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: she is currently the most viewed Youtuber in Australia, and has been covered in multiple media reports, as noted above. Radagast3 (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. "Australia's queen of YouTube" according to a top tier australian newspaper pretty much does it for me. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just keep. Whats the harm, zeesh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.145.215 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 124.178.145.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons as above --129.78.64.103 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable blog. Just another YouTuber. Page exists solely to generate "viral" notability. Several of the “keep”s confirm that. Yes, yes, I know “assume good faith” except to do so in this case would be to ignore the obvious. Proxy User (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough reliable source coverage. Also per: I don't care much about YouTube celebrities, but I know about communitychannel. Most YouTubers are not notable, but she is. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's the 37th most subscribed user on the whole of youtube, and the top subscribed user in Australia, and she's attracted serious coverage in notable publications, which are linked = notable.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the articles tend to focus on Natalie Tran--perhaps a merge/rd to that page (itself currently a rd) would be helpful? JJL (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, she's only really notable for this, but it does seem to be notable, and CommunityChannel is not a single event. Given that the Natalie Tran article doesn't exist, that would be an article move anyway, and we're discussing deletion right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no point in an Encyclopedia. It's just a youtube account. Do you honestly think every youtuber should have an article in Wikipedia? Perhaps every human being also? This has no encyclopedic relevance, and constitutes only publicity. Also, I feel if such articles are allowed, Wikipedia looses credibility as every person can feel entitled to create their own page about their blog, web site, youtube channel, etc. This is a prime candidate for deletion. --88.157.120.168 (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject, well sourced article. What else is there to say? Ichormosquito (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move (see my comment below) Delete Non-notable, just another YouTube vlog. Hotcrocodile (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you explain why she is not notable? According to WP:WEB, communitychannel meets the criteria for being notable. She has been the subject of multiple news articles in reputable publications and has been featured in the media. Just look up the references in her article if you don't believe me to see if this is true.-Schnurrbart (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point, her vlog isn't notable, but she is. A couple of the articles about her would, I believe, pass WP:WEB, therefore I would vote Keep but only if the article is renamed Natalie Tran with a redirect from Communitychannel, which (as she's a single person YouTube channel) would then be consistent with other YouTubers on the List of YouTube celebrities. Hotcrocodile (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that is reasonable. Can an article nominated for deletion be renamed before the decision of whether it should be kept or not is made or would we have to wait until after that decision is made to decide whether it should be renamed?-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move) I would actually argue that her vlog is what is notable, her fame isn't as natalie tyler tran but as communitychannel, but looking how other vloggers entries are done it's using their names and you're linked from their vlog names. Salle81 (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move) I concur with Salle81. Her Vlog is notable, but keep it consistent with previous Vlog pages.----aaftabj-- (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia as a reputuble encyclopedia should allow information/biographies on important people and should not limit it to what only academics and other published encyclopedias/scholars think is important. After all, Wikipedia has hundreds of pages devoted to starsand other frivolous subjects which may be considered unimportant, that could be considered fan pages. Wikipedia should not deny this page on an up and comming media star. Wikipedia, if it truly is the encyclopedia of the people, would allow information on what the people/users consider important. Anything less goes against its principles of allowing anyone to contribute information and they would be preventing its users from augmenting their knowledge about the world around it. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.35.220 (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move article to her real name. Mahanga^Talk 02:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously the person's who have said delete are simply jealous, I do not believe Wikipedia is loosing any sort of credibility whatsoever because the article Isn't presenting a load of false data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.221.34 (talk • contribs)

Comment At least some of them voted for deletion when the article was in a very preliminary state but a lot of progress has been made on the article since then so I think they would vote otherwise at this point.-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia has plenty of character profiles on celebrities, Natalie Tran is an online celebrity. She now has credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MosaicMoments (talk • contribs)
Keep but rename it Natalie Tran, redirected from communitychannel.Reyesking1 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Reyesking1. While most such YouTube bloggers are not notable, she appears to be so, and meets WP:N and WP:WEB. I would integrate the refs into the text, and move to the person's name. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2009 (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.