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 To be clear, this article is being kept because of the presence of multiple, independent non-trivial reliable sources which is the general standard, not the number of views. JoshuaZ 21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happyslip[edit]

Happyslip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

An article for a YouTube user? Come on!! This is not an encyclopaedia. It fails WP:NOTABILITY and all of its references back cite to the user's page on YouTube. — Indon (reply) — 22:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ok, you're probably right :). That was my first edit ever; I thought I'd start an article on a person I like. However there are several YouTube users with Wikipedia articles (see Category:YouTube_video_producers). The number of subscribers is regarded as the main parameter of notability on YouTube, and the category above lists several users which I think fail WP:NOTABILITY even more then she does. You're right about the references, though... I'll see if I can find something outside YouTube. --Outspan 22:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It mentions many times that she has a total of over 17M viewers altogther, and the 6th most subscribed user. Doesn't that sound notable to you? - Presidentman 22:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't sound notable to me. Shall we put also popular flickr user? or friendster? or whatever web user? Notability is proven by a non-trivial independent reliable source, not based on how many people watch the web. I can create a robot to boost my own viewer count. — Indon (reply) — 08:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm reading the notability criteria, and the evidence is there, although I wish it were stronger. All the sources confirm that this person is popular on YouTube. Happyslip has won second place for YouTube Best Comedy Award- YouTube doesn't produce its content, so I'm not sure if an award from them counts as 'independent' enough. She's also won Phillipine Blog Award for Podcast of the Year. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FisherQueen, blog and link to its own, let alone YouTube, do not consider as reliable source, per WP:RS and Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons#Sources (if we consider him/her as real person). — Indon (reply) — 08:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: 16 million number is not supported by reference given. Editor has falsely quoted references to overstate alleged notability. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Reference is fixed now. Still, are ALL 17+ million YouTube users notable? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Note The YouTube source does confirm over 17 million page views. You have to scroll down to the bottom of the page, but I saw it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply to update. No, not all, or even most, YouTube users are notable. I think it's reasonable to say that some are, though. See lonelygirl15 for another example of a notable YouTube broadcaster. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Lonelygirl is notable because of the controversy more than her number of views. I still think that only top few (ten at the most) are notable. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply to reply to reply :) I agree; pageviews alone do not make one notable. If I hadn't found the awards, I'd have said delete no matter how many pageviews it had. Honestly, I'd still like to see some more sources, as right now, my support is there but not strong. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply to reply to reply to reply ;) I agree too; I think it's rather the pageviews number combined with one of the very first positions in the most subscribed list (notice that all users until the number 8 in the ranking have an article) and the award. --Outspan 22:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I agree with you there. Actually, both theres. All the way. :) --Moonriddengirl 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much indentation. See Below for reply.

• Keep, unless I'm misreading something. I look at the source given and it says "Videos: 30 Views: 17,107,948" She seems notable for her role on the site. --Moonriddengirl 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You are not misread the count, but probably did not correctly read proper guideline for WP:NOTABILITY in Wikipedia. — Indon (reply) — 08:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Or perhaps I interpret it differently than you do. :) Under bio: "Entertainers...: has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Youtube may not be high art, but it's undeniably a field of entertainment. She's been singled out by viewers of the site for special recognition. She seems notable for her role on the site. I would feel her case is stronger if she had more third party references (and it seems that those are being located below), but I think that this could make a test case in itself for suitability of citations. As I understand it, the purpose of third party verifiability is to be sure that the subject is not offering misleading information. In this particular case, especially with her 2006 viewer support, there doesn't seem to be any way for her to falsify that. I believe that statistics from within youtube are sufficient for this purpose. Youtube has no reason to falsely promote this one entertainer. --Moonriddengirl 11:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Number of views on YouTube is about as useful as Ghits. All it says is that people have viewed the videos. That doesn't assert notability, nor is it an independently verifiable source of notability. In fact, the only assertion of notability is the 2006 Video Awards link… but, she hasn't won anything, nor even formally been nominated. It's just a vote by site-users. Unless someone can find some verifiable independent sources of notability, this article should be deleted. -- Kesh 22:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I previoulsy said "strong delete", based on faulty evinced and the stuck out that vote. Now that everything is fixed, I still feel the article should be deleted. After reviewing WP:WEB and WP:BIO, I find that there are no well-known, independent works or awards referring to HappySlip, nor has she been mentioned in any fashion outside of YouTube and some guy's blog. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete youtube celeb with no real notability outside of youtube. Youtube views are not substitute for real coverage from independent sources Corpx 02:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I mentioned above, it's not just the views but rather the combination of that, the fact she is one of the very first positions in the most subscribed list (notice that all users until the number 8 in the ranking have an article) and the award. Anyways, in case this gets deleted, I think that articles like thehill88, Jackson Davis, Emmalina, James Kotecki, Ben Going, Richard Stern should be considered for deletion too. --Outspan 09:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Except for Jackson Davis, who arguably meets WP:BIO by virtue of his significant role in lonelygirl15, the subjects of the articles you mention all have independent coverage from secondary sources. HappySlip does not. Believe me, I've looked. Ichormosquito 09:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but move to Christine Gambito for the exsistence of numerous independent secondary sources among which NY Times, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, San Francisco Chronicle (see below). Delete votes seem not to be aware of those sources. There should be a redirect to Christine Gambito from Happyslip too. -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 08:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete I can't believe I missed this when it was first nominated (a full day ago). I think the argument I made in the Kevjumba AfD discussion is applicable here too. A large subscription and/or viewership rate is not enough to establish notability. YouTube, despite how popular it is, is essentially a site of self-published media. I don't see the subject as meeding any of the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Also, take note that a subscription base of 65,000 is really not as significant as it may sound, as (A) viewership on YouTube is restricted to a relatively specific community, and is not as diverse and widespread as say, film, television, or even radio, and (B) compared to the regular viewership of most entertainers, 65,000 is still a pretty small number. If she had any significant coverage in other media, or was notable for any work outside of YouTube, then I could understand an exception, but as it stands, I don't see any indication that she passes WP:BIO. Also, in general, I think Wikipedia may need specific notability guidelines for internet celebrities, a category that may be specific, but is also relatively unique. Calgary 09:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Keep The sources found are more than enough to pass WP:BIO. Calgary 04:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment For easy access, here's a link to the AfD for Kevjumba you mention. It had many of the same issues this AfD has: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevjumba. Ichormosquito 10:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and move to Christine Gambito Delete If HappySlip had coverage from independent, secondary sources, I would factor that in with her impressive YouTube stats and my opinion might be different. Unfortunately, she doesn't, at least not yet. Ichormosquito 09:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Strong Keep and move to Christine Gambito, per the existence of secondary sources with varying degrees of reliability; an apparent "cult audience"; and uber-prominence on YouTube, the most visited web site on the internet that isn't a web portal. Ichormosquito 11:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OOOO! Looky: This looks pretty reliable to me, from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. I find another half as good and I'm changing my opinion to "keep". Ichormosquito 11:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Quote: "People not only got her jokes, they made her into an Internet video celebrity." Ichormosquito 11:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment The above source was nationally syndicated; I saw it from The Miami Herald as well. At Red Orbit, the story has "Christine Gambito" in the title. Ichormosquito 13:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Story at somewhat notable web based news publication.[1] It's the Asia Sentinel, but God knows its Wiki-article wouldn't pass at AfD. Ichormosquito 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Article at Asian Journal Online[2]. I'm not familiar with it, so I don't know how reliable or notable the publication is; but it's a secondary source and chock full of info. Ichormosquito 11:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 'Comment The Asian Journal seems to be having server problems that it didn't have last night. Here's the page:[3] Ichormosquito 04:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Autobiographical article[4] printed in Back Stage. Ichormosquito 11:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment This clinches it, from BusinessWeek: The High Price of Getting Paid for Content. The funny thing is, I haven't even exhausted my Google search yet. Ichormosquito11:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Local coverage at hamptonroads.com, the first is an interview.[5][6] On the scale of reliability, I'd say hamptontroads.com would rank above a blog. Ichormosquito 12:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Here[7] she's interviewed by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters for that newspaper's podcast. Ichormosquito 12:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Comment Nearly all of the above sources call her a "star" or some variation of. Ichormosquito 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment for Ichormosquito: instead of putting sources here, why don't you put them in the article so I can review the case? Based on the sources you gave, if the editors rename this article to Christina Gambito, then it's a different story. — Indon (reply) — 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I agree with you. Should I just copy-n-paste, or it's better to move it? If so, could anyone do it for me -- my account is new and not yet enabled to move pages. So do you think there should also be a redirect from Happyslip to Christine Gambito? -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can move it, but we should wait until the AfD is over. Ichormosquito 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I was planning to get them in there, but I didn't have time last night. I listed them so the article wouldn't get speedied. Ichormosquito 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete - The only reliable source information about Happyslip independent of "Happyslip" I could find was that "YouTube is sharing ad revenue with its "most prolific" content creators, including Happyslip." That one sentence might be good for the YouTube article, but it's hardly enough write an article on Happyslip. The topic fails WP:N for lack of reliable source information about Happyslip independent of Happyslip. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Follow-up - More information can be found by looking for "www.happyslip.com" and "Christine Gambito". In any event, the article now contains enough relaible source material to meet WP:N. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the references above? -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/question: I also found a tv interview, does that count in any way? Btw, should these links be added in reference or external links section? Sorry for asking but I'm a newbie here ;) -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - You can certainly source it, but I think editors might be divided over linking to a pirated YouTube video. I don't have a problem with it. As for the other sources, just copy the sources into an external links section; and we can incorporate them into the article over the next day or so. Ichormosquito 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You can use what the interviewer says, but statements by Happyslip in the interview are not independent of her and thus do not qualify as independent WP:RS material. It's one way Wikipedia keeps the article sizes down. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article does not meet BIO requirement. Outside of YouTube, no one can source her as a quote "Internet Celebrity". She creates VLOGs, why is that notable ? Apelike 00:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, a quote from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "People not only got her jokes, they made her into an Internet video celebrity." The other sources say the same kind of thing. The closing admin should look over this user's edit history and my case against him at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remi Broadway. I don't want to go further into it here. Ichormosquito 02:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- Ichormosquito 04:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet. —Ichormosquito 04:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep article blatantly passed WP:BIO after the numerous sources that Ichormosquito found. Delete votes appear not to be reading the discussion, as they're not providing any rationale for why a half dozen sources should be ignored. --JayHenry 05:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And it seems you found even more sources. Ichormosquito 06:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Current version passes WP:BIO. --ElKevbo 11:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to the subject's real name. There are some unreliable sources per WP:RS, but it only needs some clean up. — Indon (reply) — 11:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth I'm sorta neutral on the rename. WP:NAME says the name should prefer the title that's most easily recognized. Tens of thousands of YouTubers know her as Happyslip, where I'm guessing a much smaller number of people know her as Christine Gambito. But as I see it, it's not a big deal either way, as one title or the other will simply redirect and both names will be mentioned in the first section. --JayHenry 20:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep subject of nontrivial mainstream media coverage. Eleland 21:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep What a ridiculous nomination. HappySlip has millions of views and is one of the most popular series on YouTube. - JNighthawk 05:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Dragonbite 05:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the Heymann standard. Bearian 18:50, 24 August 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.