Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Regardless of one's opinion of the article subject, the consensus of the participants in this discussion is that sources establish GNG and this article should be Kept. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Pinkydoll

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Pinkydoll (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROMO CassiJevenn ( talk) 01:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep She's featured in a New York Times article, Vice is ok, with the rest, the article is at notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Draftify with the intent of allowing the author to rescue content into a potential article on NPC streaming. Sourcing clearly establishes notability. All of NYT ( [1]), Vice ( [2]), Complex ( [3]), and The Guardian ( [4]) are significant coverage, independent, and should be reliable. Unrelated to deletion, a spot check on the sourcing reveals issues and possible BLP problems; the NYT article doesn't mention anything about her stepfather's death, for instance. I'm going to look a bit deeper at this; if they're significant, draftifying might be preferable here. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 01:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) (edited 03:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC); see comment below) reply
    I've fixed the sourcing issues I discovered (birth date, stepfather death, and using a sensational headline claim instead of the actual article claim); I think this is fine staying in mainspace. @ Benmite I'd personally push for a cleanup on the promotional language and claims (are celebrity viewers on her livestream noteworthy? Is the amount of money she made in one stream? I don't personally know, but it seems like it might not be), but there aren't serious neutrality or BLP issues I can see. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 02:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Returning to this to reconsider in light of the analysis by @ SWinxy and @ Alpha3031. I can see the 1E arguments here. There are still stories being written about her (e.g. [5], [6]), but it is clear most of the coverage demonstrating notability came during a brief window where the subject went viral in mid-July. I don't agree that coverage is exclusively primary—there is biographical information in articles that is not coming from an interview with the subject—but the biographical information here is surprisingly limited (as noted above, I scrubbed the article of several unsourced BLP claims), and it's not clear to me there's enough information here to write a biography. I'm going to take some time to review the sources more thoroughly this evening, but there is clearly merit to Alpha3031's deletion argument.
    Regardless of her notability, I would encourage other editors to maybe dial down the moral panic comments; I'm pretty sure the Kids These Days™ didn't invent flash-in-the-pan celebrities. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 18:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Ah, thanks for the ping. I've not actually evaluated whether the sources are independent. WP:NOR and RS cover this but primary sources may still be independent sources, this is probably expounded upon in most detail at Wikipedia:Party and person. N requires both though. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 23:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Yep, I think we're in agreement on that (i.e., secondary and independent are not synonymous, and these sources are certainly independent). As for notability, secondary isn't technically part of GNG, but it's an NBIO requirement and articles being based on secondary sources is an important stipulation of BLP.
I've taken some time to review the essays that you've linked here in detail. They mention specific types of articles like eyewitness news and human interest stories. We can argue about if these qualify as either ("eyewitness" can be defined quite broadly for things like viral TikTok trends), but I imagine it'd be a quick road to getting bogged down in pedantry. To me, the better question is the one you got at in your original comment: using the sources available, can we write an encyclopedic biographical article on the subject?
Reviewing the sources in depth, the biographical details recoverable from them are thin. Most of these articles are about the trend of "NPC streaming," using Pinkydoll as an example since she is the originator of the trend; even the NYT article (which mentions her in the headline and does seem to focus on her content) is pretty sparse in this regard, though it's certainly the strongest source here. I'm convinced there's not enough significant coverage of Pinkydoll herself here for an independent biography.
I do think the sources show that the NPC streaming trend is notable. Since we have no NPC streaming article, I'm making the somewhat unusual ATD suggestion of userifying or draftifying this page so that content can be moved into an article on that subject (I don't think "merge into non-existent page" is a thing, and a straight move wouldn't be appropriate). Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 03:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Fundamentally, the present coverage does not support an encyclopedic biographical article on the subject. The secondary analysis that we use to form the bones of an article are largely absent (there is perhaps some focusing on the trend itself, but I would prefer to defer judgement on this per WP:DELAY. It would be easier to determine the applicability of SBST given another few months). We can flesh out some facts, sure, but it is difficult to determine what is and is not appropriate to include. I believe it's a reasonable interpretation of WP:NEWSPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY to exclude the coverage we have on that basis also.
In short, I would consider the existing coverage neither significant nor secondary, instead primary and routine. As such, this is a delete. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 08:27, 20 August 2023 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pinkydoll&oldid=1171937260"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Regardless of one's opinion of the article subject, the consensus of the participants in this discussion is that sources establish GNG and this article should be Kept. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Pinkydoll

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Pinkydoll (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROMO CassiJevenn ( talk) 01:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep She's featured in a New York Times article, Vice is ok, with the rest, the article is at notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Draftify with the intent of allowing the author to rescue content into a potential article on NPC streaming. Sourcing clearly establishes notability. All of NYT ( [1]), Vice ( [2]), Complex ( [3]), and The Guardian ( [4]) are significant coverage, independent, and should be reliable. Unrelated to deletion, a spot check on the sourcing reveals issues and possible BLP problems; the NYT article doesn't mention anything about her stepfather's death, for instance. I'm going to look a bit deeper at this; if they're significant, draftifying might be preferable here. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 01:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC) (edited 03:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC); see comment below) reply
    I've fixed the sourcing issues I discovered (birth date, stepfather death, and using a sensational headline claim instead of the actual article claim); I think this is fine staying in mainspace. @ Benmite I'd personally push for a cleanup on the promotional language and claims (are celebrity viewers on her livestream noteworthy? Is the amount of money she made in one stream? I don't personally know, but it seems like it might not be), but there aren't serious neutrality or BLP issues I can see. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 02:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Returning to this to reconsider in light of the analysis by @ SWinxy and @ Alpha3031. I can see the 1E arguments here. There are still stories being written about her (e.g. [5], [6]), but it is clear most of the coverage demonstrating notability came during a brief window where the subject went viral in mid-July. I don't agree that coverage is exclusively primary—there is biographical information in articles that is not coming from an interview with the subject—but the biographical information here is surprisingly limited (as noted above, I scrubbed the article of several unsourced BLP claims), and it's not clear to me there's enough information here to write a biography. I'm going to take some time to review the sources more thoroughly this evening, but there is clearly merit to Alpha3031's deletion argument.
    Regardless of her notability, I would encourage other editors to maybe dial down the moral panic comments; I'm pretty sure the Kids These Days™ didn't invent flash-in-the-pan celebrities. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 18:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Ah, thanks for the ping. I've not actually evaluated whether the sources are independent. WP:NOR and RS cover this but primary sources may still be independent sources, this is probably expounded upon in most detail at Wikipedia:Party and person. N requires both though. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 23:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Yep, I think we're in agreement on that (i.e., secondary and independent are not synonymous, and these sources are certainly independent). As for notability, secondary isn't technically part of GNG, but it's an NBIO requirement and articles being based on secondary sources is an important stipulation of BLP.
I've taken some time to review the essays that you've linked here in detail. They mention specific types of articles like eyewitness news and human interest stories. We can argue about if these qualify as either ("eyewitness" can be defined quite broadly for things like viral TikTok trends), but I imagine it'd be a quick road to getting bogged down in pedantry. To me, the better question is the one you got at in your original comment: using the sources available, can we write an encyclopedic biographical article on the subject?
Reviewing the sources in depth, the biographical details recoverable from them are thin. Most of these articles are about the trend of "NPC streaming," using Pinkydoll as an example since she is the originator of the trend; even the NYT article (which mentions her in the headline and does seem to focus on her content) is pretty sparse in this regard, though it's certainly the strongest source here. I'm convinced there's not enough significant coverage of Pinkydoll herself here for an independent biography.
I do think the sources show that the NPC streaming trend is notable. Since we have no NPC streaming article, I'm making the somewhat unusual ATD suggestion of userifying or draftifying this page so that content can be moved into an article on that subject (I don't think "merge into non-existent page" is a thing, and a straight move wouldn't be appropriate). Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 03:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Fundamentally, the present coverage does not support an encyclopedic biographical article on the subject. The secondary analysis that we use to form the bones of an article are largely absent (there is perhaps some focusing on the trend itself, but I would prefer to defer judgement on this per WP:DELAY. It would be easier to determine the applicability of SBST given another few months). We can flesh out some facts, sure, but it is difficult to determine what is and is not appropriate to include. I believe it's a reasonable interpretation of WP:NEWSPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY to exclude the coverage we have on that basis also.
In short, I would consider the existing coverage neither significant nor secondary, instead primary and routine. As such, this is a delete. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 08:27, 20 August 2023 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pinkydoll&oldid=1171937260"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE