Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ysabella Brave

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep as per the consensus from this discussion. Non-admin closure. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ysabella Brave

[edit]
Ysabella Brave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This person was a popular YouTube performer some time ago and then essentially disappeared from the site long before her channels were deleted. She had her (well-deserved) moment in the sun, but I don't see how she currently overcomes WP:NTEMP. She has released no albums and the New York Times reference has nothing of consequence other than a pointer to the already cited LA Times Magazine feature. I don't think this meets WP:NN. Perhaps someday she will merit an article here, but that day is not now. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 22:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete weak keep - I recognized her name but couldn't quite place it at first. Essentially she is an amateur singer who does not achieve notability. As pointed out, notability is something that does not fade. If she makes the cut past the interpretation of notability, it opens the floodgates to many, many Youtubers to make articles. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote to weak keep. I misinterpreted WP:NTEMP a bit. The question is if she was notable enough in the past. Perhaps, perhaps not. If she had a LA Times feature, as Jmundo says, I can accept her as notable. But it's still a questionable call. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmnnn, I don't see how she ever satisfied WP:NOTE, which prefers multiple sources and not just a fan piece in a newspaper's magazine section. (The NYT article simply refers to the LA Time's opinion piece.) This is not someone who appears to have ever achieved notability in the first place.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 07:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: if you read the article, it is an opinion piece by a single author declaring his status as a fan. IIRC, it has no other content. It is also far from obvious she ever obtained WP:NN in the first place. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 00:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Based solely on the strength of 110 videos over the course of one year, she has amassed a following of 1.3 Million subscribers and a recording contract with Cordless Records (A division of Warner Music Group)." 1--Jmundo (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having a contract with an online music distributor seems a world apart from actually having an album (which she does not). Yes, she had many subscribers, me included, although I assume that number should be divided by 2 as she had two separate channels, but her performances in the past year were fortunate to have 5,000 viewings. This is all far too Warholian for my tastes to warrant an encyclopedia entry.RandomHumanoid(⇒) 05:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the article lists her as having 33,389 subscribers, not 1.3 million. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 22:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ysabella is part of the history of Youtube - if her label releases her music, her's will be a notable case of a person who achieved a career as a consequence of her participation in the Youtube community. My wife, my kids and I have been fans, and we are distressed by the removal of her channel for no stated reason. Ysabella is an important person if only for the way she has been removed, and this situation must be scrutinized and written about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.123.3 (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal reminiscences do not establish notability. Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for arguing about perceived injustices on YouTube. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This was once a more informative, balanced, and well-sourced article. Unfortunately, it got hijacked by at least one "fan" who insisted on deleting any and all information -- and sources -- that he deemed to be critical or even insufficiently worshipful. The result is a page that would only be out of place in a fan magazine by virtue of being so badly written.RandomCritic (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for keeping the entry for Ysabella Brave. RandomHumanoid, although claiming to have been a fan, seems to be one of those on the internet who have taken against her. She is certainly notable enough to be in Wikipedia having been featured in articles written in the New York Times by Virginia Heffernan and the LA Times by Pulitzer Award Winner Dan Neil, as well as other Newspapers. A google search of ysabellabrave yields 84,600 results. She has been consistently active on YouTube. It was mentioned that she had 110 videos. In fact she had 181 videos (17 original songs, 48 talk videos, and 116 on her regular channel). She had almost 36,000 subscribers on her regular channel and almost 13,000 on her talk channel. Someone suggested this number should be halved because she has two channels, yet presents no statistics to back up that statement. She had well over 20,000,000 video views. This is certainly notable enough. Though the channels are currently suspended, it is not known if they will stay suspended. YouTube has been known to reinstate channels. So, deleting her entry based on that unknown seems grossly unfair. And RandomHumanoid, is, in fact, inaccurate in what he has written. He wrote concerning her presence on her channel "then essentially disappeared froom the site long before her channels were deleted." This is untrue. In a little over a year and a half she released 16 original songs on her channel which she not only wrote lyrics and music for and performed, she also wrote the accompaniment, played all the digital instruments, and created the video to go with each song. An amazing accomplishment. On average she put up 3-4 videos per month in the last year. All of them receiving at least 10,000 views, and many substantially more. That is hardly disappearing from YouTube. So, since RandomHumanoid is inaccurate in facts, one should not give a whole lot of credence to his argument. Performer's careers ebb and flow. Should Wikipedia articles be based on current popularity? Or, should they be based on celebrity achieved. Without question, she has achieved more than celebrity enough to be retained in Wikipedia. Her entry on Wikipedia has been subject to a lot of diabolical editing by what are known as Ysabellabrave haters. And Wikipedia has had to take a stance against them. Many have messed with her Wikipedia page with deletions and inaccurate edits. From the start the Ysabellabrave haters have tried to get her entry deleted. One, need only look at the history of the edits and silly controversy about her name. Now, those same Ysabellabrave haters see an opportunity to get it deleted completely. I hope Wikipedia realizes what is really going on here. People have tried to get her Wikipedia entry deleted from the start. This is just a continuation of that campaign. It is wrong, it is unfair, and it is intentionally destructive to a very fine person and an excellent performer/composer/lyricist/videographer/artist. And Wikipedia should not allow them to prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomesaregood (talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, RandomHumanoid, state the factual inaccuracies. I did state the factual inaccuracies that you made concerning the number of videos she posted (if you want I can post a complete list of every video she posted to show your inaccuracy) as well as her activity on YouTube, which you did not refute. And, I was pointing out that the amount of credence given to your posts should be based, in part, on the fact it was factually inaccurate. Pointing out you made mistakes is in no way being uncivil. It is being accurate. All of what I wrote is relevant to the notability discussion at hand. I believe many of the posts concerning Ysabella Brave since the creation of her entry have violated the Civility standards of Wikipedia. Mine do not. I am dealing with facts and inaccurate postings by others. It is a proven fact that there are a number of people on both YouTube and on Wikipedia who have tried to get her entry deleted from the beginning. Their purpose has had nothing to do with accuracy of listings or amount of celebrity, but everything to do with their having taken against her. Did she achieve celebrity enough to be in Wikipedia? Obviously, since she is in Wikipedia, the answer is yes. The typical ebb and flow of celebrity should not obviate that inclusion. Should we create a bar chart about celebrity? Last year she had enough, this year she doesn't, next year she does, etc., and pop her listing in and out of Wikipedia based on a yearly reckoning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomesaregood (talk • contribs) 06:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fans are frightening.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 07:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promodnonman: Pure and simple, I was interested in information about what happened to YB and came here to find out what was known. I simply like having a place to find information. the notes that would delete information of interest from an encyclopedia should be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.102.96 (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletionists are frightening. -- Gnomesaregood 06:10, 29 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnomesaregood (talk • contribs)

Keep per 20 000 000 views on YouTube , for over 84 000 Googlehits, for being featured not only on those mentioned LAT and NYT [1] , [2], [3], but also on numerous highend blogs like [4], for being phenomenon on YouTube if not for longer, then at least for the time span 2006-2008.

It is interesting to see, that the move to delete her entry on Wikipedia occurs so very in time of her disappearance from YouTube. So very suddenly. Even though it is so fast reaction, still there was obviously enough time for someone to make in time in between interesting deletion on part of this article undermining (somewhat weakly but unnecessarily) general impression from the article. Reo ON | +++ 04:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources cited above. Meet GNG, not a single event. Hobit (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Looks like the article has made the minimal requirements for notability, which, as Hobit mentioned above, extends past one single event. MuZemike (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The entire nominating argument is fallacious.
    The deletion nominator states:
    "This person was a popular YouTube performer some time ago and then essentially disappeared from the site long before her channels were deleted. She had her (well-deserved) moment in the sun, but I don't see how she currently overcomes WP:NTEMP."
    It appears the nominator is saying that Ysabella Brave once met notability guidelines, but now she doesn't "currently overcome WP:NTEMP"
    The relevant sentence of this three sentence WP:NTEMP guideline is this:
    "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic."
    In other words, if Ysabella Brave met the notability guideline before, as the nominator appears to acknowledge, then there doesn't need to be continued media coverage of the subject. Once Ysabella Brave became notable, she remains notable.
    It troubles me greatly that the nominator quotes a guideline which contradicts the very foundation of his deletion argument.
    The nominator states: "She has released no albums", Wikipedia:Notability (music) has no such guidelines.
    The nominator then acknowledges that Ysabella Brave has been in the most influential newspaper in the country, the New York Times, the NYT seems to find that it is notable enough to mention, but the nominator doesn't. The nominator mentions the LA Times article, the "second-largest metropolitan newspaper in the United States and the fourth-most widely distributed newspaper in the United States".
    The nominator ignores the local San Diego Daily Transcript.
    Only on Wikipedia can one single person put an article at jeopardy by arguing the notability of a subject when the most influential newspaper, and the second largest newspaper in the country found the subject to be notable.
    Not to mention the:
    Business Wire, and
    two Globe and Mail articles on Google News.[5] travb (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep these discussions civil and about the article, not about editors. As I have said, I do not think she ever became notable. Period. Thus, the AfD. Your comments about me are offensive and utterly irrelevant to this discussion. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 18:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep : I just learned that both Ysabella Brave's channels were pulled last month, because of the Karaoke songs on one of them, which she was willing to remove, and I consider this an extreme travesty of justice — and that her article here was so swiftly nominated for deletion by overzealous guardians of who should or should not be considered notable here, or remain so, an even greater travesty. ~ Kalki (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A continued Strong Keep. RandomHumanoid seems to think that anyone questioning him is being offensive to him. He says to be civil and keep the discussion about the article. But, he is the one who has nominated her article for deletion with very specious reasoning and an obdurate insistence that she isn't notable enough based solely on his opinion. He posted inaccuracies about her and her YouTube channels which were pointed out. Yet he clings to his opinion based on those fallacies. Of course, this is about what he has written which was demonstrably incorrect. He also accused me of being offensive. What I think is offensive is denying the notability of someone who has been written up in The New York Times (more than once), the LA Times, San Francisco Newspapers, and various Newspapers around the world which haven't even been mentioned; been written up in notable blogs; had almost 36,000 subscribers to one YouTube channel and almost 13,000 to the other and was the 76th most subscribed director on YouTube at the time of the suspension; etc. A few days ago a Google search for ysabellabrave yielded 84,600 results. Today (01.01.09) 88,300 results, an increase of 3,700 hits in a few days. Certainly another indication of notability. Someone who was not notable would not be yielding that many increased results. I agree with Kalki that there is a travesty going on here and it has nothing to do with her notability. I resent that one person could put Ysabella Brave's entry in an uproar based on his thoughts that she wasn't notable enough, or notable at all. I also find it very suspicious that she was flagged for deletion only days after her YouTube channels were suspended. She was certainly notable enough for RandomHumanoid to notice her entry in Wikipedia. Signed by Gnomesaregood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.236.54 (talk) 22:10, 1 January 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/Ysabella_Brave&oldid=1136106805"