Aella (influencer): 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) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Mathglot ( talk ) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdrawn Mathglot ( talk ) 06:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I do not know if this is relevant, but the page seems to have attained 95,576 pageviews in the time since it was created in October 2023.  I have made a number of pages, but never has one received so many pageviews, especially in such a brief period of time since I first made it.  I think the page passes WP:GNG though based on the available coverage regardless.  Iljhgtn ( talk ) 21:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Some additional sources not in the article currently: Business Insider , Playboy , Reason .  Thriley ( talk ) 21:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Snarky remarks of the "Gee, how weird/icky" type are not a valid deletion rationale.  Apart from the New York Times coverage that the nominator appears to be trying to dismiss above, the article also already cites WP:SIGCOV from a RS (a book published by PublicAffairs ).   Together with the SIGCOV listed by Thriley above, this handily satisfies WP:GNG .  (Reason and Playboy are green-rated RS, see WP:RSP#Reason and WP:RSP#Playboy . As for the BI article, I am not quite sure if it falls into the site's green-rated culture part or the yellow-rated remainder , but in any case the author seems to be a seasoned media reporter. By the way, there was also a separate Reason article with more journalistic content in addition to the interview.)  Lastly, the nominator's insinuation that the article's subject lacks a substantial audience size as a writer except for a viral post or two is 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) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Internet .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as TOOSOON - coverage is not the sort of biographical coverage we would need to properly support a WP:BLP .  What little coverage we have here was scraped together from the barest coverage we could find.  Google News overwhelmingly shows trashy tabloid coverage of the woman who doesn't shower.  HaeB hammers on the NYT coverage, but we don't give people a Wikipedia article for having a single paragraph in one NYT story - that's the quintessence of a passing mention.  As discussed on the talk page, the Auerbach book coverage is a single paragraph and a quote - it's a mention in passing, not BLP writing about Aella.  This is what a BLP looks like when the original author is a huge fan and can't find any actual RSes once their tabloid coverage has been removed (see history, and see their spirited talk page defense of using the New York Post on a BLP).  It is possible Aella will do something genuinely noteworthy at some point, but at absolute best this is a WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard ( talk ) 23:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Curious about your definition of "hammering"; evidently it differs from wikt:hammer#Verb (I hadn't commented about that New York Times coverage before).  Nobody argued that we should give people a Wikipedia article for having a single paragraph in one NYT story alone, 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.  WP:SIGCOV isn't about length, but describes coverage that is 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.)  Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 19:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as TOOSOON This page gets a lot of views, yes, but that doesn't mean that she is notable, it means that this wiki article happens to be the first result when you google "Aella" and she has a lot of fans.  But if you do google her, the results are almost nothing but her own blog posts and one or two articles.  Deciding if an influencer is "notable" is tricky business, 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", it was changed to "influencer" after it was ruled she is not in fact a scientist.  What she is really is a meme which has been making waves in a small corner of the internet, and until she actually gains some notoriety outside of tweets about the girl who got a birthday gangbang or tabloid articles about the woman who doesn't shower, she is a meme.  And generally memes only get Wikipedia articles when they reach a level of notoriety that she has not yet obtained.  Jelephant ( talk ) 00:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] RS coverage outside of tweets has been amply demonstrated at this point.  Let's stick arguments based on Wikipedia policies, instead of personal theories about memes and waves .  Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 22:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- really a unique sort of independent scholar, to be getting any kind of coverage at all. Hyperbolick ( talk ) 01:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- It is appropriate that this nomination has been formally withdrawn.  The subject may have an unusual career and lifestyle, but she is far from lacking in notability.  Although the article in its present form is only short, with a small number of references, a google search reveals very quickly that she has been the subject of lengthy interviews/profiles in various publications over several years, eg unHerd, 2020 , Business Insider, 2020 , Reason, 2022 , Mere Orthodoxy, 2023 .  There's probably enough content in those interviews/profiles alone to source a "good article", and they don't include the references already cited in the article.  In fact, I'd be inclined to expand the article myself using those sources, but I am always reluctant to do any editing of an article that - fairly or unfairly - is the subject of a not-yet-closed deletion discussion.  Bahnfrend ( talk ) 08:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Mere Orthodoxy exists to create media for Christian renewal" - I'm not entirely convinced this is a Wikipedia-quality RS for notability - David Gerard ( talk ) 10:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ David Gerard : You've quoted a top of page slogan that is being used to solicit donations.  So what?  Similar Jimbo Wales slogans appear at the top of Wikipedia articles from time to time.  A quick look at Mere Orthodoxy's Editorial Board page indicates that the source appears to have the editorial setup characteristic of reliable sources.  You might not agree with the source's editorial stance, but even if that is so, it wouldn't necessarily make the source unreliable.  I don't agree with the editorial stances of ABC News (Australia) or The Guardian , but I often use both of them as reliable sources.  And the Mere Orthodoxy article I linked makes some interesting comments about the subject of the Wikipedia article that might be worthy of inclusion in the latter article, as sourced commentary about the subject rather than as merely factual material.  That's the sort of content that can potentially transform a stub into a "good article".  Again, I am presently refraining from doing any editing of the Wikipedia article until the deletion discussion has been closed.  Bahnfrend ( talk ) 15:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] New Wikipedian but I would imagine a neutral perspective would allow nearly any publication as long as said publication isn't one person trying to circumvent the system.  1thousandseeds ( talk ) 00:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] I think after like 7 days or something an admin will come along and remove it.  With the other sources now added by you though, the "Multiple issues" tag may also be something that is eligible for removal as well at this point.  Iljhgtn ( talk ) 00:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to draft , pending satisfaction of the TOOSOON objections.  BD2412 T 01:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple RSes, including GQ , Playboy , Reason , and Business Insider .  gobonobo + c 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources has not been demonstrated, and this clearly is TOOSOON or else not notable.  Content with the draftify suggestion if that will achieve a consensus, but any improved article in draft space needs to address the location and use of suitable secondary sources.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This kind of WP:JNN ! vote isn't very useful.  Above, several commenters have observed that the GNG is, in fact, satisfied, and discussed in detail how this has been demonstrated at this point, by examining undisputedly non-trivial coverage in at least three reliable secondary sources (plus coverage in two other RS that at least some of us think is significant, too).  Simply asserting the opposite without addressing these arguments at all is the kind of thing that WP:ATA asks us to avoid, so it would be helpful to substantiate your opposing claims.   Is it because you disagree with the current community consensus that the aforementioned sources are "generally reliable", as documented at WP:RSP ?  Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 22:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sources have to contain significant coverage, not just trivial mentions.  Most of these do not.  They have to be independent.  That rules out the interviews.  They have to be reliable, so there go the tabloids, and they have to be secondary.  Which sources meet all these criteria?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 01:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, please be more specific with your objections.  E.g. which of the sources provided above in favor of notability do you consider to be tabloids ?  To help you get started with substantiating your claims, how about explaining them in case of the GQ article?  It is independent , not an interview , and secondary.  So we have assume you consider GQ to be a tabloid, in contrast to WP:RSP : 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) [ reply ] 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, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In light of the fact that the article now cites WP:SUSTAINED SIGCOV in several RS dating back to 2017 (not even counting the NYT article and the PublicAffairs book as the two 2023 citations whose SIGCOV status was disputed by one editor above), I consider the TOOSOON claims refuted and do not think that draftifying would be an acceptable outcome.  Regards, HaeB ( talk ) 02:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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) [ reply ] Comment – I advise editors advocating for delete due to "blog" and less-reliable sources popping up on GNEWS to look a bit deeper, as some of the better sources come from several years ago.  Look as well in other languages like Spanish.  If you just scroll down more (possibly page 2 depending on your location), you'll come across some of Spanish-language media's most respected papers of record covering this subject.  TLA tlak 15:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Could you post up links to sources you think would count towards GNG, and then we can evaluate those.  Thanks.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Subject meets GNG with coverage going back to 2017.  Thriley ( talk ) 19:33, 29 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep