Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Mackey
=[[Danielle Mackey]]=
:{{la|Danielle Mackey}} – (
:({{Find sources|Danielle Mackey}})
WP:NN seems to have little to no notability, can't find any real references on google. I highly recommend deletion, but there might be enough data to not change this to a CSD. Jab843 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete, unless significant secondary sources can be provided to establish notability. Nightscream (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ({{find video game sources short|Danielle Mackey|linksearch=}}) • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - But she has a modeling portfolio. Isn't that an exception to the GNG? Actually I did look though, and the best I could come up with is [http://wow.joystiq.com/tag/panser/ this from Joystiq]. But I'm not sure how any of it could be used since it's just a series of synopses of her videos and nothing on her. And I can't really make out what her involvement with Maxim is all about. Possibly they were the ones who did her photoshoot, but again there's no information on the person that wasn't created by she herself. Also I checked Google Scholar and Highbeam and there's nothing usable there so don't bother. -Thibbs (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep, per basic criteria on WP:BIO. Sources have been added, subject is notably connected to multiple events. -- Netoholic @ 11:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:*Actually not bad. The TBS bio and the Rome Observer article are probably RSes and Gamesradar is listed as an RS at WP:VG/RS. If she wins this "King of the Nerds" thing then there will almost certainly be further RS coverage. Considering that the article seems to meet the minimum threshold of "multiple reliable sources", I say keep for now. -Thibbs (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
::Even with those, she is still a very minor e-celebrity. We do not have to document every single one, or even those with a few sources. Just the most important ones. Until she reaches that point, she shouldn't have an article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep The added sources have made it far closer to WP:NOTE. Nightscream (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Just another youtuber. Her being on a tv show doesn't warrant a Wikipedia page either, since not everyone on the show should get a page. It's not inherited. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:: That's not quite true. If the other people are only notable for the show, then the show page would be sufficient for documenting them. That's not the case with this subject, who is notable for multiple events/circumstances (not counting YouTube, since that is a self-source), so a dedicated article is appropriate per WP:BIO#Basic criteria. In other words, if we ignore the YouTube reference, her presence on 2 television shows and a Maxim contest would be enough, since they are independently mentioned in documented secondary sources. A page for the person is able to appropriately "bridge" the connection between these other events. -- Netoholic @ 09:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep notability well established by multiple sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.55.119 (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
— 71.72.55.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
No point in keeping. Just delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.68.26 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep. -- she seems to have several connections to notable events, both online and off. References are cited, and context is provided. Skotte (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete - lack of notability. 89.75.58.109 (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep - There is documented notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.27.98 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
: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.