Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Lewis

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 delete. Having X number of subscribers on Youtube does not make you notable. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arbitrary quantity. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Lewis

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

Minor YouTube celebrity that doesn't appear to pass

WP:MUSIC despite a few vague claims to notability. Speedy and then prod both removed, bringing here for discussion. Black Kite 15:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

She has almost 13,500 subscribers on YouTube and is a legitimate presence in the YouTube Community. Please don't delete her page!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.138.134.192 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)— 198.138.134.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
She may not meet all of the musician requirements, but I think the page should stay up. She seems to fall more under the category of youtube/internet-in-general celebrity. She is about as famous as and similarly notable for the same things as, say, someone with a popular video blog. And, most of the people I associate with knows who she is (I did not introduce them to her work, and we in no way know her personally). Ana The Person (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no good reason for this page to be deleted. If something as dated and inane as Disco Duck deserves an entry, then Molly certainly does! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.180.59 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC) — 24.192.180.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment That is a
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Maybe you should actually read
Usenet people pages. Maybe the problem with this page isn't its existence but its categorization. --Mr. Scholarly Guy (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I have read the guideline, but I think the legitimate precedents it is talking about are referring to something very different from Youtube personalities (it mentions articles for
WP:WEB, which it also fails. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I also see no reason for deletion here. Molly Lewis is definitely noteworthy as an excellent example of the new breed of YouTube celebrities. I've seen much less important/significant articles on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.245.112 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC) — 64.122.245.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I further insist on the notion that this page should not be deleted. Molly has MP3s available for sale on her website [1], has performed on stage in front of large audiences with
John Green (author), and is part of a compilation album [2] put out by DFTBA records. There are nearly 13,500 people (a number that grows on a daily basis) that actively display an interest in what Molly does, and a page on Wikipedia will do nothing but help those people find more information about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.165.244 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC) — 68.1.165.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
Comment Can you explain how any of what you have mentioned above applies to
WP:ILIKEIT, which doesn't fly at AfD. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment We are all aware that Wikipedia is not "Advertising space" and it is completely illogical to use it in such a way, the only way to find this page on Wikipedia, is by typing in the subject's name, therefore anybody viewing this page already knows who she is. Anybody who does type her name in, just wants to find out more about her, and this article allows that.

Comment - I have added the "Not a ballot" template, as the article is linked from the subject's Twitter page , so we can expect a lot of
SPA supporters. JohnCD (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment -
WP:AGF I think you are being unfairly dismissive of people such as myself who have registered because they have taken an interest in this issue. Everyone has their own particular starting point. --Mr. Scholarly Guy (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Obviously fails every aspect of
WP:WEB; number of Youtube hits or subscribers is utterly irrelevant. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment And why exactly are those numbers irrelevant? It's a direct representation of how many people are interested in what she's doing, and it's exactly what makes her notable. There are several thousand people that view content of hers on a consistent basis, and I really don't see why that's something that shouldn't be taken into consideration. Molly's notability comes in different forms than the norm, and it shouldn't be looked at as worthless simply because it doesn't fall under any specific category. 68.1.165.244 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the contrary, the notability of this individual must be established according to existing guidelines. Feel free to point to whichever guideline that states Youtube hits (or Alexa ratings or whatever else) establish notability; I cannot see one. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're missing my entire point. By the very definition of the term, a guideline is something that is not absolute. The guidelines for
WP:MUSIC were selected to be guidelines because, in most cases, they are how musicians gain popularity. It is not set in stone that those are the only ways a musician can possibly rise to popularity. Molly releases songs and information on Youtube, and as of this writing, her musical content - between montages of mini-covers (as in, small pieces of various songs put together into a single video), full covers, and original songs - has been viewed no less than 1,386,864 times through Youtube. If she were to release an original song via Youtube right now, 13,673 people would be notified of it, and just in case you didn't believe the claims that her numbers grow on a daily basis, that's a number that was below 13,500 when the debate over this article began. How can you look at those numbers and simply say "Nope. Not in the guidelines. I don't care about it."? 68.1.165.244 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Clearly doesn't meet any of the criteria at
talk) 13:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

delete. doesn't meet notablility req for musician. references are youtube links, amazon.com pages, and no significant coverage by rs.untwirl(talk) 20:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Youtube links and Amazon pages are not the only references there are, there are also references to Ukulelehunt.com and Jonathan Coulton's official website. She is signed to the independent label DFTBA records, and she was included on a compilation album (this is a requirement for
Captain Fishy (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

—
Captain Fishy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits
outside this topic.
Comment Ukelelehunt.com is not a
WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Would you care to explain how you know that DFTBA Records is a non-notable record label? (I am aware that it does not appear on the list of "Notable Record Labels" on Wikipedia, but that list is hardly comprehensive.)
Captain Fishy (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment That will be the absence of third-party coverage of the label, and the absence of a roster of notable artists. I believe the guideline is
WP:CORP. I got a paltry 1000 Google hits ofr the company name. Incidentally, I note that Molly Lewis is not listed on the label's official website, under the heading "Artists", presumably because she is yet to even release a record. Blackmetalbaz (talk
)

Comment I have just updated the page to include information about one of her cover songs being mentioned on the official website for the UK mainstream TV channel "
Captain Fishy (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

This is not a vote count, but even so you are only supposed to say "Keep" or "Delete" once. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I know that it isn't a vote count and I was just stating my opinion, I suppose I just misinterpreted the rules.
Captain Fishy (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. She doesn't pass
WP:MUSIC. Yintaɳ 21:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Clearly, Molly is notable according to tens of thousands of youtube subscribers. I would be curious as to how many hits this particular entry has received. How many people have recorded songs about Wikipedia itself? Seemingly, it behooves this site to keep this entry up, if nothing but to continue to self-promote. Not to advertise for a teenage internet phenom, but as to remain a modern and legitimate reference. If internet celebrities are not included in your internet encyclopedia, then perhaps you should go back to hardcover and collect dust as the original but now archaic encyclopedia that Wiki has become. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointerb (talk • contribs) 21:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC) — Pointerb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep There are three pages of Molly Lewis (sweetafton23)videos and videos of covers of her songs on NME.com. NME.com is the website of the popular UK music magazine "New Musical Express", better known as "NME". http://www.nme.com/video/search/sweetafton23 They have been publishing since March of 1952. This is the "Rolling Stone Magazine" of the United Kingdom and they think that Molly Lewis is notable enough to devote three pages to her on their website. Analoguemagazine.com, presents Molly's cover of Britney Spears' "Toxic" and says of Molly, "Here’s one from Youtube yuke genius sweetafton23." http://www.analoguemagazine.com/the_blog/toxic-friday/#comments Istardom.com lists Molly Lewis as the 1,008th most famous musician on the internet. http://www.istardom.com/index.php?star=Sweetafton23 Aol Video has ten pages of Sweetafton23 vidoes, videos of others covering her songs and related videos. http://video.aol.com/category/sweetafton23 She has played with Jonathan Coulton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRpKDBLehJI&feature=player_embedded and has played at author John Green's book signing in Seattle. Molly Lewis' star is on the rise. If her page gets deleted it will only have to be reposted at a later date. Ronnisim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnisim (talk • contribs) 16:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC) — Ronnisim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Analogue Magazine's listing is just two sentences in a blog and their description "For bonus LOLz.." is not giving me the impression they take Molly very seriously. NME's video site clearly states "The video content provided on this page is generated by YouTube and consequently features user-generated content". In other words, anybody can get on there. NME does not "think that Molly Lewis is notable enough to devote three pages to her on their website", as you wrote above. NME-Video is just a YouTube search engine and no indication of notability or NME approval. The same goes for Istardom.com and AOL Video. Yintaɳ 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I just made myself appear on that NME-Video page and believe me, I really don't belong there. Yintaɳ 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether the Analouge Magazine "take Molly very seriously" or not, the point is they mentioned her, I see no part of the rules that states that the subject must be "taken seriously". The reason they say "for bonus lolz" is because they find it funny, I fail to see how that makes her less notable. You are right about the search websites though.

Captain Fishy (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Regretful Delete. Her song about dating and breaking up with Wikipedia is absolutely hilarious; however, even if you stretch the point, I don't see her passing
talk) 03:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Currently we have at least two reliable sources: "Dave" and the "Analougue Magazine", not to mention all of the Youtube videos (I know these are neither published nor notable, but they are a genuine record of what Molly has done). Other than this, she does not fall directly into any other categories of the music notability guidelines (remember these are guidelines not set rules, and they do not state that the subject must fall into more than one category). We also have several other sources like UkuleleHunt, their reliability is subject to dispute, but they are "independent from the musician".
Captain Fishy (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment As far as I can tell, the Analogue source is both non-reliable (it's a blog) and trivial (two sentences with no information about the artist), and the Dave source also appears to be trivial. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're probably right about the Analogue source, but the Dave article is not "trivial", it directly talks about one of her covers, and it places her on a list of "7 of Uke-Tube's Greatest Moments" (alongside some other videos which are certainly notable).
Captain Fishy (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I'm sorry about this, but the Dave mention is pretty much the dictionary definition of "trivial mention". In fact, the precise extent of the mention is the line: "You Tube has also seen a wealth of unlikely covers being given a run-out on the ukulele ranging from a version of Europe’s ‘The Final Countdown’ to a cover of Britney Spear’s ‘Toxic’", on a blog hosted by the site, which doesn't even mention Molly Lewis by name, even in the list of Youtube links at the bottom of the page. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked the
Captain Fishy (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Check again.
WP:ENTERTAINER doesn't apply here. It's for actors and comedians. Yintaɳ 16:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. For all the reasons stated so well by others above, but let's hear more appeals to the authority of old media and the corporate music industry on Wikipedia because it's hilarious. Oh, also I need someone to admonish me that this is not a ballot. --Mr. Scholarly Guy (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC) — Mr. Scholarly Guy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment aimed at Captain Fishy and others: WP doesn't care about YouTube. You can keep hammering on about her YouTube videos but they're irrelevant to this discussion. She can have as many YouTube hits as she wants. The WP community has set the criteria for inclusion at
WP:MUSIC and try to get consensus to have them changed. That's how things work here. Yintaɳ 08:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I think there is an important distinction between Youtube hits and Youtube subscribers, the latter of which is what people are generally pointing to. The reason people are talking about the number of subscribers is that it indicates an sizable following of people who may be interested in knowing more about Molly Lewis. For example, I came here because I was interested in finding out what kind of baritone ukulele she played.
assume good faith. — 208.108.4.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
Don't put words in my mouth, please. I said that "there appears to be" canvassing going on. As also stated by JohnCD above who expected the same to happen and added the "not a ballot" template, since this discussion was mentioned in Molly's blog. Of the nine people who said "keep" so far, eight had hardly done anything on WP before. Or since. I don't think I'm being "passive agressive" (isn't that a contradiction in terms?) when I notice that and mention it. It doesn't mean you're not entitled to your opinion. (By the way, the distinction between YouTube hits and YouTube subscribers is irrelevant when it comes to
WP:MUSIC.) Yintaɳ 15:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
~~Youtube hits and subscribers are irrelevant when it comes to~~ Captain Fishy (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It doesn't matter because
WP:MUSIC is the guideline to go by. Yintaɳ 16:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I stand corrected.
Captain Fishy (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2009 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Molly_Lewis&oldid=1079654222"~~