Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aella (influencer): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:35, 8 March 2024

Aella (influencer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable OnlyFans blogger with a viral post or two, and some passing mentions in the press. 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]
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]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 *'''Keep''' I do not know if this is relevant, but the page seems to have attained [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Aella_(influencer) 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. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]]) 21:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' Some additional sources not in the article currently: [https://www.businessinsider.com/day-in-the-life-of-onlyfans-sex-worker-writer-entrepreneur-creator-aella Business Insider], [https://www.playboy.com/read/when-camming-is-the-family-business-1 Playboy], [https://reason.com/2022/07/31/aella-on-sex-work-economics/ Reason]. [[User:Thriley|Thriley]] ([[User talk:Thriley|talk]]) 21:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
+*'''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 [[WP:RSP#Insider|green-rated culture part]] or the [[WP:BI|yellow-rated remainder]], but in any case [https://muckrack.com/mark-stenberg the author] seems to be a seasoned media reporter. By the way, there was also [https://reason.com/video/2022/04/20/meet-aella-the-libertarian-rationalist-sex-worker-turned-data-scientist/ 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 {{tq|a viral post or two}} is factually dubious (this is only a [[Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Notability|crude indicator of notability]], but I thought it worth correcting since it was brought up as an argument for deletion above). Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)