The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Non-notable
OnlyFans blogger with a viral post or two, and some passing mentions in the press. Good to know she only showers once every ten days, though whether that cracks the notability ceiling is questionable.
Mathglot (
talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
a viral post or twois factually dubious (this is only a crude indicator of notability, but I thought it worth correcting since it was brought up as an argument for deletion above). Regards, HaeB ( talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
give people a Wikipedia article for having a single paragraph in one NYT storyalone, that's a strawman. And your delete !vote fails to address or even just acknowledge the other RS coverage that has been cited in favor of notability.
more than a trivial mention, but [...] does not need to be the main topic of the source material.The David Auerbach quote in the article summarizes an extensive body of work by the article subject in one area, it is not a "trivial mention" at all.
This is what a BLP looks like when the original author is a huge fan- I'm not saying that fan-created articles aren't a problem in general, but in this case the insinuation that Iljhgtn created the article because they are a "huge fan" seems rather unsubstantiated. (Yes, they were mistaken about the suitability of the NY Post as BLP source. But that's water under the bridge now - that citation was removed months ago.)
but what sticks out to me is that this article didn't even start out as being about an "influencer" it started out as being about a "data scientist", I created this originally and did not really know what I was doing yet to be fair. I have since created over a dozen other articles over time, but this was a earlier one for me to be sure. I changed the disambiguation text from "data scientist" to "influencer" based on new emerging consensus around what to call Aella. I took the "data scientist" term from an article or podcast or video that she was in that I first saw or read that made me want to write this article in the first place. I was surprised that she did not have one. Anyway, just wanted to address that one point. Iljhgtn ( talk) 01:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
outside of tweetshas been amply demonstrated at this point. Let's stick arguments based on Wikipedia policies, instead of personal theories about
memesand
waves. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 22:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Not sure what the protocol is about removing the deletion notice from articles after the nomination has been withdrawn; but in any case I have just expanded the article adding citations to extensive coverage in three different RS (all green-rated at WP:RSP), including one that hadn't yet been brought above: this GQ article from 2021. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 20:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. Nominator has withdrawn their deletion nomination but there are several strong Delete arguments that render a quick Keep impossible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
tabloids?
There is strong consensus that GQ, including its international editions, is generally reliable. It is noted by editors for having quality editorial oversight for non-contentious topics.In that case I think it would be more productive for you to first start a discussion at WP:RSN and see if you can change the current community consensus about this source towards your opinion. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 21:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus, would Draftify be acceptable to editors? This is often a resolution to TOOSOON
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep – We have profiles in GQ and Playboy, and more, both perfectly relevant RS that has WP:SIGCOV of this subject. There is more like NYT that arguably falls short of significant coverage, so I really do not think this is WP:TOOSOON, as we have coverage over half a decade. TLA tlak 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Non-notable
OnlyFans blogger with a viral post or two, and some passing mentions in the press. Good to know she only showers once every ten days, though whether that cracks the notability ceiling is questionable.
Mathglot (
talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
a viral post or twois factually dubious (this is only a crude indicator of notability, but I thought it worth correcting since it was brought up as an argument for deletion above). Regards, HaeB ( talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
give people a Wikipedia article for having a single paragraph in one NYT storyalone, that's a strawman. And your delete !vote fails to address or even just acknowledge the other RS coverage that has been cited in favor of notability.
more than a trivial mention, but [...] does not need to be the main topic of the source material.The David Auerbach quote in the article summarizes an extensive body of work by the article subject in one area, it is not a "trivial mention" at all.
This is what a BLP looks like when the original author is a huge fan- I'm not saying that fan-created articles aren't a problem in general, but in this case the insinuation that Iljhgtn created the article because they are a "huge fan" seems rather unsubstantiated. (Yes, they were mistaken about the suitability of the NY Post as BLP source. But that's water under the bridge now - that citation was removed months ago.)
but what sticks out to me is that this article didn't even start out as being about an "influencer" it started out as being about a "data scientist", I created this originally and did not really know what I was doing yet to be fair. I have since created over a dozen other articles over time, but this was a earlier one for me to be sure. I changed the disambiguation text from "data scientist" to "influencer" based on new emerging consensus around what to call Aella. I took the "data scientist" term from an article or podcast or video that she was in that I first saw or read that made me want to write this article in the first place. I was surprised that she did not have one. Anyway, just wanted to address that one point. Iljhgtn ( talk) 01:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
outside of tweetshas been amply demonstrated at this point. Let's stick arguments based on Wikipedia policies, instead of personal theories about
memesand
waves. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 22:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Not sure what the protocol is about removing the deletion notice from articles after the nomination has been withdrawn; but in any case I have just expanded the article adding citations to extensive coverage in three different RS (all green-rated at WP:RSP), including one that hadn't yet been brought above: this GQ article from 2021. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 20:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. Nominator has withdrawn their deletion nomination but there are several strong Delete arguments that render a quick Keep impossible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
tabloids?
There is strong consensus that GQ, including its international editions, is generally reliable. It is noted by editors for having quality editorial oversight for non-contentious topics.In that case I think it would be more productive for you to first start a discussion at WP:RSN and see if you can change the current community consensus about this source towards your opinion. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 21:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus, would Draftify be acceptable to editors? This is often a resolution to TOOSOON
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 22:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep – We have profiles in GQ and Playboy, and more, both perfectly relevant RS that has WP:SIGCOV of this subject. There is more like NYT that arguably falls short of significant coverage, so I really do not think this is WP:TOOSOON, as we have coverage over half a decade. TLA tlak 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)