Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neekolul

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 no consensus. Sandstein 14:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neekolul

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page lacks reliable sources and there is no claim of notability here, as the sources discuss the meme instead of the subject herself. Could possibly be promotional too. AshMusique (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most of the sources aren’t reliable anyway. Vice is, the Daily Dot I believe is, news.com.au is. They’d be enough to support a stub at most I should think, but being famous for lip-synching on a single TikTok would in any case put her into WP:BLP1E territory. Mccapra (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was apparently either not properly placed in the article itself, or incorrectly subst'ed onto the AfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 04:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment/Keep You also should mention Kotaku being a clear reliable one. Sources mentioning her career as a streamer cause her to pass that WP:BLP1E thing. Not a big fan of that policy, as it kinda fails to understand how virality works online. Take Chewbacca Mask Lady for example. Probably arguable that she is known for just the one video, but she passes GNG. Regardless, there's sources talking about Neeko's streaming past the one TikTok/Twitter video. Additionally, that one TikTok video has notability just beyond its virality online (i.e. its perceived effect on Sanders' campaign by viewers and outlets). Soulbust (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. dibbydib (T ･ C) 06:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not make an article covering the video itself and not the person behind it? Notablility is not inherited. dibbydib (T ･ C) 06:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also how is it promotional? I'm assuming good faith here, but it's pretty clearly not promotional. Pretty much every sentence is cited properly. Also "the sources discuss the meme instead of the subject herself," is a misreading of the article. Look at the Background and personal life and Media reception sections, as well as paragraphs 1, 4, and 5 of the Online career section. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are about the meme, but also have information about her being reached out by Sanders' campaign. Soulbust (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment/Keep Agreed with above keep. Madbrad200 (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2020 (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.