This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
@Ktkvtsh, what is your argument for notability here? I'd been keeping this in draftspace since, although I think it's highly likely Abram will eventually become notable, I hadn't found the sources for it yet. {{u|Sdkb}}talk14:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktkvtsh, subscriber count is generally not accepted as sufficient if a YouTuber does not pass WP:GNG, and channels with over a million subscribers regularly get deleted. I think this article is at high risk of being AfDed currently, so I'm going to redraftify until it's on a bit more solid footing. I have a Google Alert set up for mentions of Abram, so as soon as there's additional coverage I'll hopefully see it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk15:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I improved the sources and was bold and pushed. I was going to write an article, but saw this already existed. There are multiple third party sources which cover Abram and her work so I think it is defensible.--Varavour (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used at present are largely not reliable ones, so I don't think this could survive an AfD at present. I have a news alert set up for her, so when there is sufficient sourcing I'll publish. But we're not there yet. If you're curious about specific sources, feel free to ask and I'm happy to discuss. {{u|Sdkb}}talk15:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Into the Gloss consists entirely of an essay submitted by Abram, so similar to WP:INTERVIEW, it's not considered a WP:SECONDARY source that could contribute to notability under WP:GNG.
Thrilling looks like SEO-bait. Its author is a pseudonym, which is never a good sign. So overall, I'd say not reliable.
Video Consortium does actually look like a qualifying source to me. The producer is a BBC reporter, and although it's an interview, it looks like one where the journalist is engaged enough to make it a secondary source.
The Family Nation looks like more SEO-bait (the subheadings with search terms are always a giveaway). The author's page offers no journalistic credentials, nor does the site's about page speak to its ethics policies (e.g. a corrections policy). So I'd say also clearly unreliable.
So we ultimately have one notability-qualifying source, but GNG requires multiple. So this is close but ultimately not quite there yet. It's better to wait a bit for her to become clearly notable than to launch it prematurely, have it AFDed, and then have to fight to re-create it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
