The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karolina Protsenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It sounds like she has every chance of having an article in a few years, but at the moment it seems a bit too soon. Furius (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - As of June 2021, she has more than 5.2 million subscribers on YouTube and has been covered in international media such as the Hindustan Times and The New York Times. -- Evans1982 (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I see the Hindustan Times piece, but not the NYTimes article. Could you link it please? Furius (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I know, we do not have a notability standard which is linked to number of YouTube subscribers. "Subscribing" to a YouTube channel involves no real commitment on the part of the viewer, just clicking a link, and people subscribe to a great number of them, so the number of subscribers seem to me to be a poor indication of notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Evans1982 provided the following link to the NY Times article: [1]. Furius (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Times article is a passing mention in an article about an entirely different subject ("Why Do Hoax Videos Proliferate When Disaster Strikes?"). In its entirety:

  In fact — the presence of a major highway might have been a tip-off — it was taken in California, during wildfires last year, and first appeared at the time on the Facebook page of the 10-year-old Ukrainian violin prodigy Karolina Protsenko. (The voice we hear is Protsenko, praying in Russian.)

  Such a mention does not establish the subject's notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for this - Evans1982 posted it to my talk page rather than here for some reason, so I was passing it on, but I didn't have access to the text. Furius (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Karolina Protsenko is quite notable, but I think the page should be shortened and made more neutral in order to keep it here. --Sharky tale (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I created this article chiefly using the Hindustan Times and another reference. The article had only a couple of references at the time of this deletion nomination, but now it has many. I think this would establish notability to a sufficient level. Let me see what other editors say. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, the other refs are mostly passing mentions, and are not in-depth. For those !voting "Keep", can you specify how the subject passes the notability requirements of WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added two more citations (a newspaper and a magazine). Not sure if these meet our requirement. User:Beyond My Ken, can you please validate and confirm? Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (borderline weak) Changed to Neutral - In a day where fame can be achieved online, I happen to think subscriber numbers does carry some weight (particularly once into the millions). We tend to judge notability solely on the quality of referencing available, and usually rightly so, although in subject matters such as this, I also think notability as judged by real people (subscribers) can't be overlooked (especially when a greater number mean the media begin to take notice). Looking at a few videos, it's not hard to see why it's already 5M+ subscribers. I vote weak because there is a chance it may just be a little early but on balance I think it's worth inclusion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, can you point to a Wikipedia notability policy which says that the number of YouTube subscribers equates to notability for our purposes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for the edit revision (looks like it was an EC as I didn't submit straight away, so apologies there). Secondly, I don't suggest youtube subscriber numbers is a valid criteria in policy; I merely point out that it can contribute towards notability and subsequent mentions in the media. It can't be used on its own as a rationale for article retention and I wasn't basing my !vote solely on this, but just expressing a view in relation to the existing discussion. I also agree regarding your comment on the NY Times mention and consider this void when establishing notability; fortunately, other references are at least relevant. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my (already weak) vote to "neutral" as clear notability as per policy is hard to ascertain beyond dispute. There is no doubt this is a very talented girl and with a big future ahead. While I am sure an article can exist without question in the not so distant future, as I noted in my opening !vote, it *may* be a little early. While wikipedia does not recognise subscriber numbers, I don't think it's an irrelevance, although it is largely subjective in how relevant it is to the discussion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Since when is Wikipedia a commercial platform? Delete all other languages as well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c22:b024:5800:d822:d860:8885:462b (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved from talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Creating a biographical article of encyclopedic value doesn't make Wikipedia a commercial platform. The discussion here is only whether the topic on hand has acquired sufficient notability per Wiki standards and whether the sources are reliable. Please share your opinion on that. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - She has 5.2 million subscribers and is expected to have a career. For example - Laura Dekker should also be deleted from the German Wikipedia before her circumnavigation, today, in retrospect it would be shameful if the article would have been deleted. --Btr (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• {1) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
• (2) The notability policies of en.wiki and de.wiki differ
• (3) Again, please point to where number of YouTube subscribers carries notability
• (4) Unless you can show how the subject fulfills WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG, you have not shown notability under Wikipedia's policies. This is not a !vote, nor a popularity contest, it's a discussion in which arguments citing Wikipedia policy should prevail. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Utterly strong keep:

• I honestly do believe that 5.35 (to this moment) million subscribers in the subject´s main YouTube cannel is enough proof of notability.
• Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the opinion stated here that the number of followers/subscribers/social media fans is not a proof of notability. If that was the case, no Youtuber or social media personality should have a WP article. And there are countless of them.
• The subject has 6.4 million subscribers overall (there are 4 more YouTube channels that are not being taken into Account for this discussion) (Source: Socialblade.com)
• Again, overall, her videos had been viewed over 830 million times. (Ibid)
• Over 8.1 million followers on Facebook
• She has not only been featured on The Ellen Show. She has appeared in a number of other mainstream TV shows, such as Access Hollywood and New Mexico Living.
• She played a concert at Fairieworlds 2019, as an ambassador for Teen Cancer America.
• Along with America’s Got Talent participant Angelica Hale (already in Wikipedia and with far less followers in her social media) and piano prodigy Kayden Kelly, she played a concert in “Prodigies, a Million Dreams” concert in Santa Fe, NM, 2020.
• She had 3 collaboration live videos with Allie Sherlock, a notable Irish teenage girl, already in WP too. Other YouTube collaborations include fellow Ukrainian Barvina (9 million subs and almost 2 billion views), Dang Matt Smith (12.8 million subscribers and over 2.5 billion views) and Daniele Vitale (3.6 million subscribers and 565 million views).
• She is credited with an acting role in the 2020 thriller film “Sightless” (IMDB)
• Along with 3 other young violinists, she performed the cover of the song “Beautiful Life” for Dreamworks’ “Abominable” film.
• She has published the music sheets of the violin arrangements she creates for her pop songs covers. These arrangements are often used by other fellow violinists.
• She mastered the Suzuki method books (10) at age 10. Although rare, videos of her playing virtuoso pieces from Mozart, Bach, Paganini, Beriot and Kabalevsky can be found on different sources online.

I hope this helps to increase the chances of keeping this article. If the consensus is keeping it, I commit to incorporate the above and make the translation to Spanish. Benedifan (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Editor indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved from talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The above comment is this editor's first and only edit to Wikipedia. The account was created one hour ago, obviously for the specific purpose of making this edit. This raises the question of whether there is sockpuppetry or off-Wiki canvassing going on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a single one of these bullet points is responsive to the question of whether the subject is notable according to Wikipedia standards. I would advise all "Keep" commenters to read WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG and provide the specific information those standards require in order for the subject to be Wiki-notable. As I read them, that's not the case, and no one has yet provided any policy-based argument for her being notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I didn't do this before, because I thought it was painfully obvious, but that's clearly not the case. Here are the requirements of WP:NMUSIC:

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.^[1]
   • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries^[2] except for the following:
     • Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.^[3]
     • Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
     • Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
   • Only one reference meets the requirements here, so there are no "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable"
2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. No
3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. No
4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.^[4] No
5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). No
6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.^[5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.) No
7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. No
8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. No
9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition. No
10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).
    • The above comment claims she played on music for a major-studio film. No source is given, and this is not mentioned in the article.
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. No
12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. Appeared on the Ellen Degeneres Show

To me, this all adds up to a lack of notability at this time. The only criteria the subject meets is the last, and appearing on a talk show as a curiosity is hardly an indicator of actual notability. If it were, then all the guests on the Jerry Springer Show would have their own articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. "She has X number of subscribers/followers" is irrelevant.-KH-1 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Beyond My Ken's WP:NMUSIC list above really nailed it. Having a large amount of subscribers (apparently 6.4 million across 4 accounts, but this number isn't mentioned in the article at all to begin with so stop trying to use it) doesn't mean anything if there's no notable coverage, and as Ken said, being on a talk show for a little while doesn't mean anything. Also, hi Ken. AdoTang (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom . No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of Wikipedia notability at this time.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I went through the sources and Googled her for more, and don't see enough coverage. She had a viral performance and has YouTube followers, but without corresponding media coverage and album sales information, it's WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.