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. This, as documented by other cases of other "notable" subjects, is a very serious and grave issue that needs attention. We are presented with subjects that meet the suggested guidelines of notability for this website, however, the subjects of the articles have expressed the belief that an article invades their privacy. There are times when it is correct to be human over being a Wikipedia, however, this is such a controversal issue that there is no consensus or majority over this issue. There is just a straight divide. Could this be solved through community discussion? Maybe. But, as I have stated before, this is an issue that is beyond our own hands. Both sides of this issue are controversal and create more divides within Wikipedia and ourselves. This issue has expanded too far to be decided by a few clicks of an admin, a simple majority, or based upon strength of argument. There is no current, and most likely will be no consensus on this issue. Yanksox 22:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalina[edit]

Requested by subject of article in the discussion page. subliminalis 09:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep and protect if this nonsense is likely to happen again. It's just been kept, please don't renominate so soon Lurker ^haver 09:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per the above AfD, also Emmalina, which resulted in a keep. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete becase she isnt famous or notable for any other reason than being famous or notable; she herself has requested this page to be deleted. Also, her videos, myspace and livejournal have all been edited for content and are nearly bare so there is no longer any reason to link to them or for this person to have an article. Also, per this comment: Honestly, will she be remembered in 2 months when her internet fad has ended? Wildthing61476 21:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC) The obvious answer to that is a strong NO. Whatever internet fame she might have had is faded. subliminalis 16:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not renominate this in 2 months? Keep until such a prophecy comes true. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 23:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article has good references and is not poorly written. Also, a valuable article for those studying internet fame/memes. --Hetar 18:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article references videos that are no longer accessible to the public. Article also contains much speculation and gossip regarding every damn thing I do on MySpace and LiveJournal [both sites have absolutely nothing to do with my YouTube popularity]. As for renominating this in two months when people have forgotten about me - who's to say that I haven't been forgotten and replaced already? A few newspaper articles regarding something that has ceased to exist (my YouTube prescence) does not make me "famous" and does not qualify for a freaking Wiki article. This is a vanity page at best. EmmalinaL
• Delete as per request of the subject. Shortlived Internet phenomenon who has requested deletion. I doubt that she meets WP:BIO. By the way, a search for Emmalina on an Australia-New Zealand media database comes up with nothing. Capitalistroadster 03:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable passing fad. --Roisterer 05:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, may not be a speedy candidate. The prior AfD noted the amount of publicity she got, so it's an obvious ekep per various standards. The subject has no say in the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article has sufficient references to verifiy it (and deomnstrate notability). --Mako 22:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: sources will become invalid in a short amount of time. In addition, most of the details regarding emmalina are not sourced other than media coverage (for example use of "high quality" Logitech camera) and thus article is subject to bias —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trinomial (talk • contribs)
• Delete - passing fad that doe not enhance the encyclopaedia. BlueValour 03:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient references and notability for now, although it is a valid point that this individual may eventually be forgotten. If there are no further developments for around three months or so and her popularity trails off, then I would most likely vote for delete if it is put up for deletion again. At this point though, deletion seems premature. I realize that this against the wishes of the individual of the article itself, but as we have seen from the Daniel Brandt saga, consensus suggests that we don't delete articles purely because it is against the wishes of the person in question. I don't agree with that (for what it's worth) but even this aside, her notability is sufficient enough at the moment to warrant her own article.--Auger Martel 13:16, 18 August 2006 (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.