Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belle Delphine

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. Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Delphine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO or the now-discontinued WP:PORNBIO. Sources used on the article are not RS, cursory google search leads to sources from Metro, but mostly user-generated or blog content, not enough to meet GNG in my view. Bkissin (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, She has lots of sources for notability including:
• Newsweek (also on WP:RSP as reliable)

• Digg

• Junkee

• Mashable

• Business Insider

• Insider

Oh yeah, and don't forget the videos on YouTube that have made millions of views. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the article needs more fleshing out (she was a major contributor at the peak of TikTok's fame and is part of internet culture) but she does have notability as Adrian pointed out. daylon124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources and thus doesn't meet WP:GNG. Also fails WP:ENT. The article has sources from unreliable websites such as YouTube. Masum Reza^📞 22:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. All of the sources that AdrianWikiEditor posted are about her Pornhub trolling, which falls under WP:BLP1E which does not satisfy the requirements for sustained coverage as they're all from the past few days. She may be a significant figure in Internet culture, but without good sources we can't write an encyclopedic article. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BLP1E is often misunderstood. Three conditions must be met for it to apply. The second is that the person is a low-profile individual, which doesn't mean what you might think. Wikipedia defines low-profile individual in this context as "someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention". Her trolling was seeking attention, not trying to avoid it. People who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. BLP1E doesn't apply in this case. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for the correction. I've amended my comment. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with the WP:TOOSOON comment, I feel like if we wait half a year, (as she will only get more popular), then she'll have more requirments for an article. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Doesn't pass current wiki notability guidelines but that's a indictment of Wikipedia's outdated approach to keeping track of the new wave of entertainers (internet culture figures, just like actors in the early 20th century). Any other field and in any other time if any other person had close to four million dedicated followers, they'd be a entertainer of note. The fact that this article has close to 13k views in four days proves she holds interest among our readers, but there's no way to adequately cover her because there's just no sources, which is a indictment on the media too. There's no solution to this as the sources don't exist to adequately write a article which means we just have to accept being behind the times. GuzzyG (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hold that thought, PewDiePie did a video with her in the thumbnail with close to 4.8 million views in less then 13 hours. News sources will start coming in once the video gets 10+ million views. We might get this article kept. Please just keep it a little longer. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article won't be deleted until June 3rd at the earliest. You can always keep a copy of the article in draftspace and work on it as more sources show up. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG, is WP:USELESS, among other things. Not worthy of an article for a long time. And just because someone trolls a bunch of people on the internet does not make it worthy for a Wikipedia article, for this is not the first nor the last instance in which this will occur. Aviartm (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• '''Delete''' Fails WP:GNG, is WP:USELESS Please delete this. She only got famous for stealing content. She's sexualizing children and stole other girls nude photos and sold them as her own. She makes fun of dead animals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.44.135.153 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  disabled, as IPs or even SPAs we are supposed to contribute facts, not UW collections. –84.46.53.150 (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Keep This person is a notable troll. The article needs some more flesh from sources. But the notability of the party has been established by non-trivial mentions in multiple articles per above.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - famous for one thing, which she didn't even create. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources seem good enough, this is clearly a well known person as she has nearly 4 million followers on Instagram. Passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There simply isn't enough coverage to create a biography about this person. Basic facts like her birthday, residence, etc. can't be verified. The creation of her pornhub account was covered by some strong sources but that's WP:NOTNEWS.LM2000 (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As it stands currently: 5 Delete, 2 Keeps with 1 Leaning. Rough consensus on deletion has been achieved it seems. Aviartm (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she is officially an entrepreneur with selling her bath water... her absurd stunts should fully allow for a Wikipedia page in order for regular people to find out more about who she is, where she is from, and possibly how or why she does what she does / is able to attain such success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1805:22AA:3044:6073:9D16:F804 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Adding another independent source, Vox's Polygon. https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/3/20679112/belle-delphine-instagram-bath-water-troll -- discussing the merits of Belle's work as performance art. Whether you think it's nonsense trolling or not, the cultural relevance and notability of her oeuvre continues to expand. If we put aside our biases and go based on policies alone, I don't see why she wouldn't be on here. Though, perhaps WP:TOOSOON, let's see how the article develops and if it turns into one worth keeping. 98.217.255.37 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per User:SpicyMilkBoy as a non-notable BLP. I was not going to offer more than a comment but an SPA !vote brought up some popularity of stunts and selling bath water and another submitted that we should let a non-notable article ride it out because someday the subject may be notable. That she appeared with PewDiePie (one of the richest YouTubers) is posited that apparently somehow the subject inherits notability by riding coat tails but this does not "cut the mustard". Significant coverage in reliable and independent sources is not an indictment against Wikipedia for being "outdated". It is a daily affirmation that "if" something is notable it will have received coverage, according to policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this rubbish. Not notable and no significant coverage. She has contributed nothing to humanity or South Africa other than being an attention seeker. I don't know who created this nonsense. There are many people around the world who have contributed so much to humanity yet cannot even get a Wikipedia page. Yet, we are inundated almost every day with new articles created by certain boys/men in the West about the women they fancy. What is this world coming to? Attention seeking does not equate to notability.Tamsier (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:NBIO Charmk (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2019 (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.