- 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 13:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Zoella ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page is not notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoul flesh ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Procedural note. I have completed the nomination by adding it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 14. — C.Fred ( talk) 01:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep eminently notable. Unfortunately. MLA ( talk) 01:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Plenty of viable third-party sources. Still, it's sad that being a YouTube "celebrity" can earn a subject an article nowadays. sixtynine • speak up • 01:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Clearly and undeniably notable as per the widespread coverage in reliable sources. Nik the stunned 09:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - I believe that this is a bad faith nomination. Article is definitely notable, there are lots of reliable sources on the subject. Nominator, if you find problems with the article, fix them on the spot instead of taking the article to AFD. Hx7 12:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 13:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Zoella ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page is not notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoul flesh ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Procedural note. I have completed the nomination by adding it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 14. — C.Fred ( talk) 01:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep eminently notable. Unfortunately. MLA ( talk) 01:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Plenty of viable third-party sources. Still, it's sad that being a YouTube "celebrity" can earn a subject an article nowadays. sixtynine • speak up • 01:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Clearly and undeniably notable as per the widespread coverage in reliable sources. Nik the stunned 09:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - I believe that this is a bad faith nomination. Article is definitely notable, there are lots of reliable sources on the subject. Nominator, if you find problems with the article, fix them on the spot instead of taking the article to AFD. Hx7 12:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.