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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:17, 9 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]
Withdrawn Mathglot (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]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]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON - coverage is not the sort of biographical coverage we would need to properly support a WP:BLP. What little coverage we have here was scraped together from the barest coverage we could find. Google News overwhelmingly shows trashy tabloid coverage of the woman who doesn't shower. HaeB hammers on the NYT coverage, but we don't give people a Wikipedia article for having a single paragraph in one NYT story - that's the quintessence of a passing mention. As discussed on the talk page, the Auerbach book coverage is a single paragraph and a quote - it's a mention in passing, not BLP writing about Aella. This is what a BLP looks like when the original author is a huge fan and can't find any actual RSes once their tabloid coverage has been removed (see history, and see their spirited talk page defense of using the New York Post on a BLP). It is possible Aella will do something genuinely noteworthy at some point, but at absolute best this is a WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON This page gets a lot of views, yes, but that doesn't mean that she is notable, it means that this wiki article happens to be the first result when you google "Aella" and she has a lot of fans. But if you do google her, the results are almost nothing but her own blog posts and one or two articles. Deciding if an influencer is "notable" is tricky business, but what sticks out to me is that this article didn't even start out as being about an "influencer" it started out as being about a "data scientist", it was changed to "influencer" after it was ruled she is not in fact a scientist. What she is really is a meme which has been making waves in a small corner of the internet, and until she actually gains some notoriety outside of tweets about the girl who got a birthday gangbang or tabloid articles about the woman who doesn't shower, she is a meme. And generally memes only get Wikipedia articles when they reach a level of notoriety that she has not yet obtained.Jelephant (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but what sticks out to me is that this article didn't even start out as being about an "influencer" it started out as being about a "data scientist", I created this originally and did not really know what I was doing yet to be fair. I have since created over a dozen other articles over time, but this was a earlier one for me to be sure. I changed the disambiguation text from "data scientist" to "influencer" based on new emerging consensus around what to call Aella. I took the "data scientist" term from an article or podcast or video that she was in that I first saw or read that made me want to write this article in the first place. I was surprised that she did not have one. Anyway, just wanted to address that one point. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- really a unique sort of independent scholar, to be getting any kind of coverage at all. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is appropriate that this nomination has been formally withdrawn. The subject may have an unusual career and lifestyle, but she is far from lacking in notability. Although the article in its present form is only short, with a small number of references, a google search reveals very quickly that she has been the subject of lengthy interviews/profiles in various publications over several years, eg unHerd, 2020, Business Insider, 2020, Reason, 2022, Mere Orthodoxy, 2023. There's probably enough content in those interviews/profiles alone to source a "good article", and they don't include the references already cited in the article. In fact, I'd be inclined to expand the article myself using those sources, but I am always reluctant to do any editing of an article that - fairly or unfairly - is the subject of a not-yet-closed deletion discussion. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 *:{{tq|but what sticks out to me is that this article didn't even start out as being about an "influencer" it started out as being about a "data scientist"}}, I created this originally and did not really know what I was doing yet to be fair. I have since created over a dozen other articles over time, but this was a earlier one for me to be sure. I changed the disambiguation text from "data scientist" to "influencer" based on new emerging consensus around what to call Aella. I took the "data scientist" term from an article or podcast or video that she was in that I first saw or read that made me want to write this article in the first place. I was surprised that she did not have one. Anyway, just wanted to address that one point. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] ([[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]]) 01:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' -- really a unique sort of independent scholar, to be getting any kind of coverage at all. [[User:Hyperbolick|Hyperbolick]] ([[User talk:Hyperbolick|talk]]) 01:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' -- It is appropriate that this nomination has been formally withdrawn. The subject may have an unusual career and lifestyle, but she is far from lacking in notability. Although the article in its present form is only short, with a small number of references, a google search reveals very quickly that she has been the subject of lengthy interviews/profiles in various publications over several years, eg [https://unherd.com/newsroom/meet-aella-the-intellectual-porn-star/ unHerd, 2020], [https://www.businessinsider.com/day-in-the-life-of-onlyfans-sex-worker-writer-entrepreneur-creator-aella Business Insider, 2020], [https://reason.com/2022/07/31/aella-on-sex-work-economics/ Reason, 2022], [https://mereorthodoxy.com/the-human-costs-of-pornography Mere Orthodoxy, 2023]. There's probably enough content in those interviews/profiles alone to source a "good article", and they don't include the references already cited in the article. In fact, I'd be inclined to expand the article myself using those sources, but I am always reluctant to do any editing of an article that - fairly or unfairly - is the subject of a not-yet-closed deletion discussion. [[User:Bahnfrend|Bahnfrend]] ([[User talk:Bahnfrend|talk]]) 08:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)