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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-18 08:15Z

MaryAnne (ysabellabrave.com)[edit]

Contested speedy (spam and/or lack of notability), bringing here to get broader input about notability as applied to youtube performers than just the few of us on the talk page. Should we copy that material here, or at least flag it, so that if page is deleted the discussion is still preserved? DMacks 07:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When looking into this article (despite my objections on the talk page), the popularity is correct and even acknowledged by the person featuring in it. But the article will obviously need to be improved if it has to be kept. Rysin3 07:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being popular on YouTube is not notable. TJ Spyke 09:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to take a face value that this individual's work has been viewed and enjoyed by a number of people, but unfortunately even if that is certainly the case, it fails notability per either WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Above all other considerations, either of those guidelines (which I realize are not at all absolutes) insist on "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." In it's current form one has to presume that this wikipedia article is a first-account piece of text written by either the artist herself or an admirer, and has absolutely no relationship to any verifiable secondary source (much less multiple). Find a few reputable articles about this person or her music or her influence on internet culture...and then an article on her can be started. -Markeer 17:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty straightforward fail of WP:BIO/WP:WEB. Wikipedia is, unlike YouTube, built upon a broad consensus of standards for contributions, and under no obligation to support democracy of content creation or other flavors-of-the-week. --Dhartung | Talk 23:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heck-I-Don't-Know - Thank you for the discussion and for giving me some education on the foundations of wikipedia. I am starting to see the distinctions between an unbiased factual article and a review by an admirer and I will keep an eye out for "reputable" articles about the subject singer to validate the need for a wiki article. My interest in the subject, aside from the entertainment value, lies in my amazement at the power of the Internet to allow ordinary people to publish works on their own and easily distribute to a global audience with little control by government and commercial enterprise. And to see that audience interact and voice its many opinions. At some point enough people would be influenced by the subject's work to merit some acknowledgement in the pages of "reputable" sources such as the wikipedia. I guess that is what we are exploring here. How many people does it take? By the way, I do not know the performer personally nor do I have any commercial or personal interest other than as an admirer of her work. My motivation is just to let other people know about it and share the enjoyment I get from the entertainment. I suppose I like hearing myself talk too, and writing way too much about this, but I do like learning about the process wikipedia has established. Anyway, certainly, there is a need for standards governing the content of wikipedia, but I have to wonder about their interpretation. It seems like the wiki requires a middle-man between the performer and her audience to validate her work. I.e. commercially produced recordings, advertising to aquaint people with the performer, radio or TV play time, an agent to get reputable publications to notice and write articles, etc. I am impressed by the simplicity of YouTube in providing a medium in which the performer can display her talent with no outside help, and her audience can easily access and choose to watch and listen to her works. What is notable about this performer is the huge following she has acquired in such a short period of time, and the acknowledgement she receives from her fans. I think her impact on internet culture is significant and people would find it interesting and useful to find out about her in the pages of wikipedia. It seems to me that the wikipedia is a place to note such people and what they have done. Now, in my mind the subject, i.e. MaryAnne, is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I do see the points made by contributors to this page about how an article should be written, the neutral point of view, the need to prove assertions made, and so on. Based on those, perhaps it should be deleted. I would much rather see it improved upon, to bring it up to standards, so it can stay in wikipedia. Readers will enjoy discovering a singer who provides good entertainment for them to enjoy. Voyagr7 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Voyagr7, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your question How many people does it take? is beside the point; it takes a few of them being reporters or whatever who "note" the subject in the media. Your observation It seems like the wiki requires a middle-man between the performer and her audience to validate her work. is spot on, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source compiling the work of others. It is no longer unusual for a YouTube "celebrity" to develop a following in a short period of time; what makes one stand out is making the jump to another source or medium. It's possible that could happen starting tomorrow. As of now, however, she is just one of many. --Dhartung | Talk 05:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well, when you put it that way, I can see that the article does not meet the criteria. Maybe tomorrow... Thank you all, for the education and your time. Voyagr7 06:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Abstain - A cat is fine too. Koptor 12:46, 14 February 2007 (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.