Talk:Lee Newton

Comments

I personally see no reason for this article to be marked for deletion. 86.147.174.20 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I second the decision to remove the mark for deletion. This person is a notable person for making it to Maxim's top 100. ~ter890~talk 16:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete

Other than the Maxim hot 100 List she has not done anything that is Notable. Yes she is on a show that might have missions of views. That does not make her notable she is one of many youtuber. As many say Sourcefed had millions of views, where is your data to back it up? you have to to have third party data, your option is not enough. Also there was a supposed crash on Maxim because of the votes but again where is your proof? This wiki entry looks like a joke to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.145.133 (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is my proof about the 100 million of views on sourcefed? [1][2][3] Proof of the crash: [4] Exact proof can't be shown since you weren't on the website at the time of the crash. And this wiki entry is supposed to be the joke? Soulboost (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Although their is some evidence to provide hints that their was a crash for example, Maxim had to add a captcha security feature which changed the entire voting process.[5] Soulboost (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability Tag

• This article just was "kept" at AFD, yet one editor keeps placing a "notability" tag on the article (and removing content), even though he participated in the AfD and was apparently unable to convince fellow editors of his opinion. I have no personal opinion as to this article, however, I don't believe people who "lose" at AfD should try to delete by subterfuge immediately after an AfD closes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

AFD is to decide if an article is deleted, not whether it currently meets policy/guideline x. Resolve the issue of having an in detail 3rd party source, then you can remove it yourself.--Otterathome (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• The vast majority of AfD discussions are brought to test the notability of the subject. Indeed, here the AfD nominator's sole rationale in total was "This subject lacks notability." There was no other valid basis for discussion at that point. The consensus outcome was that she was notable. You participated in the discussion. Remove the tag now or you may be perma-banned.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no consensus that the subject meets notability guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It was kept because its notable. WP:NOTABILITY says the article must meet the general notability guidelines or a subject specific guideline. WP:ENTERTAINER is clearly met. I see no reason for that tag, so I'm removing it. Dream Focus 18:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Do explain.--Otterathome (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It was explained to you by someone already in the AFD. Maxim proves she Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. and thus passing WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 18:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Completely fails the basic criteria, but skims by as 'Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following' due to being mentioned after being spammed on a website. None of the sources go beyond a passing mention. Seems like a good example of WP:1E/WP:BLP1E to me. Will go AFD again in due course, assuming the 3rd party sources remain the same.--Otterathome (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The YouTube channel has 430,943 subscribers and 114,536,964 video views. [6] So I'm thinking she had a cult following before this. Dream Focus 19:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably had to do with it being a Phillip Defranco Inc. channel, which has millions of subscribers who will do what he wants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.232.126 (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Her name is Ashley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hedBQ2tr414 about 45 seconds in, I already fixed it Wrestlings Savior (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Born in Oregon

From her mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvqpie9Fpw8 at 15:52 in. Though I realize that it's not a creditable source. Drew (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lee Newton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421015437/http://www.maxim.com/hot-100/the-most-popular-hot-100-write-ins-of-2012 to http://www.maxim.com/hot-100/the-most-popular-hot-100-write-ins-of-2012

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)