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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GloZell Green (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)

Fails WP:NOTE. Having a lot of hits on YouTube does not constitute notability. I see nothing in the article or from doing a Google search that suggests Green has significant coverage (most of the sources are original research). Tiptoety ^talk 05:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete does not seem to be notable from the sources. The'ChampionMan1234 05:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but notability is determined on the sources available, not on the sources that are "in" the article at the time of its nomination. Till 12:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• GloZell is extremely significant on the internet: http://www.kansan.com/news/2011/mar/10/q-glozell-green/, http://live.drjays.com/index.php/2011/03/23/who-is-glozell/, http://popcrush.com/nicki-minaj-stupid-hoe-parody-glozell/. Sources in article are significant and reliable (implying that Perez Hilton isn't reliable...hmmm...) People looking up "Glozell wikipedia" highly suggests that they are looking for a Wikipedia article, one that has been created. No reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MargaretThatcher123 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We should go with speedy not AfD for this type of deletion The'ChampionMan1234 05:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cinnamon_challenge references her, but the link to her is not there. Why? Because no one will let her have a Wikipedia article. MargaretThatcher123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TheChampionMan1234, you declined deletion for Kumbar, which if you look up on Google receives 664,000 search results. When you look up GloZell, an article you did nominate for deletion, you get 2,660,000 results! MargaretThatcher123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Also note that GloZell has t-shirts made after her http://www.rodeoarcade.com/collections/glozell. Sounds pretty significant to me. MargaretThatcher123 (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, 2,660,000 results does not count when they are all either from YouTube fans or minuscule references from others. The YouTube personalities for which we have articles (e.g. Natalie Tran) are notable because independent, reputable, published sources have discussed them in sufficient detail. Unless you can provide these, Glozell does not make the cut. One small reference from Perez Hilton does not make the subject notable. hajatvrc @ 07:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article has been fixed with multiple reliable sources, she thus passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Till 12:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep I still feel the same way I did in the article's first nomination. The article is well-referenced and Glozell appears to have enough notably to warrant her own Wikipedia article. I don't see the problem. Statυs (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The article itself seems fine. Sources are reputable and it just proves you have to do a little digging. The article is well referenced and it seems that Glozell has made a large enough impact to warrant an article. Roseycheeksatemysandwich (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Switch to Keep after new contributions from Till and Roseycheeksatemysandwich. Good job! hajatvrc @ 16:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Ms. Green is notable for inclusion. This was more or less discovered during the previous AFD and DRV when it was located at "GloZell Green", but a lack of consensus at the DRV resulted in the AFD result being kept the same.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep No violations of NPV or NOTE. Seems fine. Close the discussion. Supercharger12821 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This comedian has received considerable press, and her YouTube channel has over 225 million views. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2012 (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.