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.
This article is a textbook failure of WP:IMPORTANCE, and also has several exacerbating circumstances pointing towards deletion. Notability guidelines require evidence from reliable independent sources, and of the eleven references for this article, five are self-published videos and one does not mention the source at all (CNN). Of the remaining five sources, an article from “THE LGBT UPDATE” is non-independent and only 54 words, “Awesomely Luvvie” is a self-published blog that fails reliability guidelines, and “Mic.com” is a highly progressive and hence non-independent source. This leaves us with two sources that could plausibly qualify as reliable independent sources: MTV and Huffington Post. Both of these have noticeable political slant and both are considered to be low-quality or “clickbait” websites. As such, the subject must fail notability guidelines. Furthermore, the article appears to have been self-written in violation of WP:AUTO and undisclosed WP:CONFLICT (as evidenced by the inclusion of non public biographical details), the article reads like a resume, and the article is an orphan.
PhysicalRemoval (
talk)
04:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Article could definitely be improved, but there are RS which cover her, which is somewhat interesting, as she is an internet phenomenon. Buzzfeed
meninists] article chose a whole bunch of memes and one 10 minute video by Blaque, which it called a "great video" refuting the critique of feminism; The LA Times, did an article in 2014 (shows is not a fleeting phenom)
talking about the importance of YouTube as a "lifeline" to the Trans community and about 1/3 of the article is devoted to Blaque. This article
from the independent in the UK] shows that Kat Blaque reaches an international audience. I also see nothing to support the nominator's claim that the article is self-published or published by someone with a COI.
SusunW (
talk)
06:23, 5 October 2015 (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.