Talk:Grace VanderWaal

Why should we only list singles that chart?

A song's single status is not dependent on whether it charts or not, so the singles section is incomplete. Songs can be released as singles and fail to chart; this happens very often. I have changed the heading to "Charted singles" to accurately reflect what the section displays. We should not be misleading readers into believing they are looking at a full wikitable of VanderWaal's singles when all they are seeing is the singles that have charted somewhere. "Charted singles" is a heading used on articles where editors, for some reason or another, have chosen to only list charting singles. Has there been a prior discussion or consensus on this matter, or is this just one editor's idea of what should be listed? This article is quite at odds with the majority of Wikipedia discographies and discography sections, where we list all songs released as singles. (Regarding replies, please do not ping me) Ss112 14:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Because if they don't chart then they're not very WP:NOTEWORTHY. Feel free to remove the singles altogether. They are not needed in a bio article, only in a discography article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the section of WP:N you just linked would appear to not agree with you. "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article", so therefore it follows that we probably should include the singles. "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people)", and as this isn't a list article, that note doesn't really apply, and it's not like it would be giving undue weight to include the set of singles she has released—she doesn't appear to have even released that many overall. VanderWaal doesn't have a discography long enough to split out that section, so until such a time, it seems appropriate to retain the discography section on her article, with the singles she has released. Ss112 03:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You are making a common error. Notability is different from noteworthiness. You misread WP:N. It is saying that the standard for judging content within an article is not "Notability", but rather noteworthiness -- that is, whether the material is important under "the principle of due weight and other content policies." Clearly, non-charting singles are not of encyclopedic importance to her main article, so they should not be mentioned, unless there is a particular association that makes them particularly noteworthy. See also WP:BALASP.-- Ssilvers (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm approaching it from a discography standard standpoint. Discographies have their own set of standards that are in practise, even if they are not in an officially accepted proposal (WP:DISCOGSTYLE not being universally agreed upon, but much of its content is still in practise). While I'm acutely aware said section is still part of her BLP, we are not mentioning every non-charting single in the prose and nor am I saying we should. I am not aware of any other instances where editors have said we should remove singles from a discography's (or discography section's) wikitable because they're not "noteworthy". If we're purporting to list an artist's singles, singles that did not chart are still singles regardless of whether they are noteworthy or not. I mean, you can cite how Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or tell me I am mistaken about whatever else you like, but nobody else seems to have these concerns when it comes to single wikitables and listing an artist's releases—or at least, none that I am aware of. Really though, beyond this, I can't muster up much more care for what happens on the BLP of a teenage girl whose period of success largely appears to be over. However, I will say that making this article non-standard by excluding releases and saying listing a few more of them would be giving "undue weight" to them like it falls under the same standards applied to a viewpoint in prose is a really odd way to come at this situation when nobody else has. Ss112 19:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, but if you cannot see any distinction between important things and trivial things, then I suggest that we remove all the singles from the main article and do not "purport" to list singles. This is not a discography article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I certainly can see a distinction between important and trivial things when I think said things are trivial. Ss112 17:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Number of followers

@Ssilvers: I'm afraid the material is not well-referenced at all. Of course it is absolutely reliable, but it is totally primary, which fails to prove its relevance. Is the number of followers she has notable by itself? Has it been discussed by third-party sources? My point is: like they say, this is basically a tree falling in a forest without anyone taking notice of it. Mentioning the number of followers in articles about celebrities (except for internet personalities) just for the sake of it is no common practice at all — otherwise, it would be just another parameter of our infoboxes. Btw, just noticed DarkGlow did the same as me one month ago, only he provided an even more accurate reason for it: it's sheer WP:FANCRUFT. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 14:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Lopes: Agreed. People only add follow counts to articles when they want to boost the importance of a subject, and it makes for poor content in general. Why list somebody's Instagram follow count when anyone can check that on Instagram? – DarkGlow (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. We need independent sources demonstrating the importance of the information. I'd expect there's some general consensus on what social media information to present and when. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Among other sources, Forbes thinks VanderWaal's social media following is important. See this. Vanity Fair mentions it as one of VanderWaal's key facts here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The Forbes link is a simple profile, so I'm not sure it demonstrates any due weight.

I'm not seeing anything in the Vanity Fair piece. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in the 2nd paragraph. Also, nothing could be more weighty than a profile entirely about the artist in a major independent magazine. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Forbes mentions her number of followers in what appears to be her profile description on their website, but they don't say the month and year when this information was true and the number is rather vague (How did they calculate it? Which social media were considered?). Vanity Fair, like you said, mentions her number of followers, but offers no actual coverage on it. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 05:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

We know exactly how many followers she has from the social media websites themselves, which were clearly cited in the stable version of the article, and are reliable numbers, as you admit above. The Forbes and Vanity Fair references confirm that this large social media following is of importance to their editors and readers, just as they are to ours. A brief mention of the size of social media followings is of interest to Wikipedia readers in this day and age when the subject of a bio article has millions of social media followers. To omit them is simply an old-fashioned and out-of-date bias against new media. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. If you can find any general consensus for inclusion of such info with such sources, please identify it. Otherwise, an RfC maybe? --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with including this information. It provides a measure of an individual's influence.Somambulant1 (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Especially in a BLP dispute, policy-based arguments are required, hence my asking for identification of any general consensus. --Ronz (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:Featured Articles for performer biographies, such as Katy Perry, include this information. A Featured Article represents the consensus of numerous editors throughout an arduous review process, which is why they are considered Wikipedia's best content. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:OSE. Please focus on policy and sourcing. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

If it is of interest to Wikipedia readers, they can check the websites themselves. Thankfully, it's not our mission to provide them with every information they may be possibly willing to know. I invite you to take a closer look at the very article you used as an example. Katy's number of followers is discussed within a bigger context of Guinness records and her position among the most influential personalities on the internet. That's the key point. She has achieved something beyond the triviality of being famous and having lots of followers as a consequence. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 21:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

PS: Trust me, not too long ago I would be agreeing with Ssilvers on a basis similar to Anastrophe's: "I don't care, but I see no harm". It took me over a decade of editing to fully grasp how "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "this information is sourced so it deserves to be here" are opposite ideas. It's not too easy an idea to understand as I made it look like. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 23:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Information about the artist's social media following should be included in the article, and that since there is no consensus to delete the information, then, per WP:BRD, it should be reinstated. Jack1956 (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack1956: That would be a BLP violation to do so. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

How so? Please cite the specific violation it meets. Anastrophe (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, in what way does the material not comply with Wikipedia's content policies - not essays, but actual policies? The opening sentence of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE makes it clear it has to do with material that is disputed on policy grounds, none of which the material violates (it's written neutrally, in clear language, and uses reliable sources). Anastrophe (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the policy does not prevent restoration of the material, because the information is "written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources." -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is "Information about the artist's social media following should be included in the article" based on? Victão Lopes ^Fala! 23:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ssilvers and Anastrophe: BLP clearly states the burden is on those seeking inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, and what exactly are your BLP policy-based, good-faith objections to the material? I think we may be faced with a recursive argument. Anastrophe (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the burden is on you. If you can't make a policy-based case that results in consensus for inclusion, start an RfC or let it be. --Ronz (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The burden of proof has been met. The material does not violate any BLP policies. The material complies with Wikipedia's content policies. Unless you can articulate specifically how the material is in violation of BLP, then this is an entirely recursive argument. You - the editor objecting to the material - must articulate your good-faith objection to the material in order for editors to bring it into compliance. Anastrophe (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how burden and consensus works. If you have questions, ask them. Meanwhile, WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

"Especially in a BLP dispute, policy-based arguments are required". I have a question: What BLP policy does the material violate? Anastrophe (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Only briefly skimming the comments, and not wanting to speak for others, but I see NOT, POV, and BLP. I agree with them all. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Rather than throwing the alphabetti spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks, which sections or sentences of those policies do you think the information in question breaches? Please quote the relevant sections of the policy and explain where the breach is please. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A few points from a completely disinterested editor.

• I respectfully suggest that mention of WP:FOC in response to user Ssilvers comment is out of place. Ssilvers made a general comment, not directed at any particular editors; it's an observation. It perhaps could have been phrased slightly differently; either way, it's not so severe as to require brandishing a policy pointer. If Ssilvers had said anyone who was against their inclusion was a Nazi, we'd be on different ground.
• I respectfully suggest that the mention of WP:OSE is also out of place; it misrepresents an essay as a policy, which it explicitly is not. One should apply a 'reasonable person' test to whether other stuff is out of place.
• Consensus doesn't inherently trump unambiguous reliably sourced content. It seems to be relevant information in 2020 - in this particular case, I would opine. A mention of Instagram followers in the article for Theodore Roosevelt would probably be out of place. Not so here.
• Lastly, I had no idea who Grace VanderWaal is before stumbling across this article while falling down the Wikipedia-rabbit-hole. I had a listen to one of her songs. It was pleasant. I personally don't care in the slightest about her social media numbers. However, I also see no identifiable harm to the quality of this article by their inclusion - it's a single line, I am capable of skimming on to the next section of the article if it means nothing to me. I suspect most other readers share that capability. If it were a large chart of ever-changing numbers, that would be a different matter. At worst, it would be appropriate to add "as of 2020" to the line, to keep temporal context. Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Should we move the information to the Reputation and Accolades section? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I would say yes, it's not really in the right location now, and it is a measure of reputation, albeit proxy. Anastrophe (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Staggering strawman to try and claim there is a BLP violation here. Social media is an important part of many artistes these days, and publications like Forbes have commented on this. The number of followers is (in general terms) widely reported nowadays. The information is sourced and well-written and claims it should be removed on the basis of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE are nonsense: it's an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rejection of new media, rather than a reversion based on a relevant part of any policy. Oh, and Ronz, don't ever edit war on people's talk pages again. - SchroCat (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed BLP RFC: include or exclude social media numbers

The following line is in dispute for inclusion in the article:

"In its 2019 profile of VanderWaal, Forbes stated that she had accumulated 8 million followers on social media.[110] As of 2020, VanderWaal's Instagram account has more than 3 million followers,[111] her YouTube channel has more than 3 million subscribers,[112] and her Facebook page has more than 1 million followers"

Violation of WP:BLP, WP:NOT and WP:POV have been tendered as reasons for exclusion. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE has been cited as rationale for exclusion, absent consensus on the suitability of the content.

Should this material be included or excluded from the article?

Is the above a suitable rendering of the dispute? Anastrophe (talk)

No, it should include the arguments that have been tendered for retaining the information, including that major media sources have found it significant, that it has been included in the article for a long time, that, for performers today, social media is an important measure of influence, and that deleting the information demonstrates a bias against new media. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

From what I understand, while being a WP old fart but generally an innocent on formally dealing with dispute resolution, the request should be worded as neutrally as possible, with the wisest advice being that 'if the reader can't determine where you stand on the issue, it's a good Rfc'. So I've kept it as simple and direct as possible. Those who do comment will likely see the thread above and go from there. Anastrophe (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a good start. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I only presented the arguments for exclusion, which is one-sided. rewriting. Anastrophe (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: here's the current content with refs:

In its 2019 profile of VanderWaal, Forbes stated that she had accumulated 8 million followers on social media. As of 2020, VanderWaal's Instagram account has more than 3 million followers, her YouTube channel has more than 3 million subscribers, and her Facebook page has more than 1 million followers.

References

Feel free to replace your initial proposal with this if you like, or we can continue from here. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, updating. Anastrophe (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed what looks like a tracking id from the ref above and in the RfC. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed BLP RFC: include or exclude social media numbers, v2

The following line is in dispute for inclusion in the article:

"In its 2019 profile of VanderWaal, Forbes stated that she had accumulated 8 million followers on social media. As of 2020, VanderWaal's Instagram account has more than 3 million followers, her YouTube channel has more than 3 million subscribers, and her Facebook page has more than 1 million followers."

References

The arguments for exclusion are violation of WP:BLP (because the material is disputed), WP:NOT (an indiscriminate collection of information), WP:FANCRUFT (only relevant to fans) and WP:POV (I'm unable to find the rationale for this last). WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE has been cited as rationale for exclusion, absent consensus on the suitability of the material.

The arguments for inclusion are that it it does not violate WP:BLP, is not excessive to the point of triggering WP:NOT for the BLP of an actively engaged and followed media personality, is not WP:FANCRUFT (for the same reason), and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is a guideline for admins, not editors so isn't a trigger until admin intervention.

Should this material be included or excluded from the article?

The specific arguments for/against may not be absolutely exact, however they're a starting point for disinterested editors to review. Is the above a suitable rendering of the dispute? (I do not intend to argue for/against within the Rfc - I think it's more helpful if uninvolved editors make their arguments.) Anastrophe (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

BLP RFC: include or exclude social media numbers

The following line is in dispute for inclusion in the article:

"In its 2019 profile of VanderWaal, Forbes stated that she had accumulated 8 million followers on social media. As of 2020, VanderWaal's Instagram account has more than 3 million followers, her YouTube channel has more than 3 million subscribers, and her Facebook page has more than 1 million followers."

References

• The arguments for exclusion are violation of WP:BLP (because the material is disputed), WP:NOT (an indiscriminate collection of information), WP:FANCRUFT (only relevant to fans) and WP:POV (I'm unable to find the rationale for this last). WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE has been cited as rationale for exclusion, absent consensus on the suitability of the material.
• The arguments for inclusion are that it it does not violate WP:BLP, is not excessive to the point of triggering WP:NOT for the BLP of an actively engaged and followed media personality, is not WP:FANCRUFT (for the same reason), and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is a guideline for admins, not editors so isn't a trigger until admin intervention.

Should this material be included or excluded from the article? Anastrophe (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: A rather poor RfC, thrown together quickly. I suggest withdrawing it and waiting a bit. Simply asking whether the material should be included or not would suffice. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  You issued a "Thank you" to my account for both versions I posted, which seems...peculiar considering your commentary here. Your opinion of the quality of the RFC is noted. I put more time and effort into it than I wanted to - I'm curious how you determined that I "threw [it] together quickly" - I was sitting at my computer alone working on it, so I'm unclear how you can make such a blunt observation. A blanket 'rather poor' is not constructive. I'm letting the RFC stand unless you can cite specific problems with it rather than inspecific carping. Anastrophe (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  Also, when I ask for citation of specific problems with it, I'm asking for policy-based issues, not personal opinions. Anastrophe (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  I've seen better RfC's get rejected outright. I thank you again for moving the process forward. I made a specific suggestion. Why not comment on that instead? --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  I'm happy for you that you've seen better RfC's get rejected outright. You're welcome. You did. Because I disagree with your suggestion; I assumed that was patent. I don't think any more discussion of these meta-matters are constructive to the RfC, so shall we just let the RfC play out, and see what happens? Anastrophe (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Include. Social media profile is increasingly important for modern celebrities, and one of these sources if from Forbes, which gives an indication of that. I've seen the plates of alphabetti spaghetti being thrown around to question the inclusion, but not which specific parts of those policies is supposed to be breached by the inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Include, per my existing commentary. Anastrophe (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Include, per stated arguments. Somambulant1 (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude. The line "In its 2019 profile of VanderWaal, Forbes stated that she had accumulated 8 million followers on social media.[110]" is well-referenced, but it still fails to establish the encyclopedic relevance of these numbers, since they're just mentioned, not discussed. Lots of info about her have probably been mentioned in multiple sources (height, favorite meal, pets' names, date of first kiss, etc.), but having some criteria for the inclusion of material is one of the things that separate encyclopedias from Wikias and catalogues. As for the rest of the paragraph, it's just WP:FANCRUFT residue and can be removed without harm to the page's overall quality. Pardon the "the end is near" tone, but I'm afraid people haven't quite realized yet what they're paving the way for by supporting this. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 22:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Include, per my existing commentary above and below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Include: a no-brainer in my view. Common sense should prevail over Wiki-lawyering. Tim riley talk 08:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Include - She also has over 2M listeners on Spotify. She was on Billboard's 21 Under 21 list, where social media was calculated into their methodology. TBH, I had never heard of this young lady before this RfC and every profile I read about her in sources mentioned her social media, one way or another e.g. embedded music videos, Instagram posts, tweets, music streaming. I'm not seeing any BLP violation either, good grief, inclusion of 8 million social media followers is not contentious material that would clearly cause harm to the subject. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

The sources are poor (primary sources and a profile) and demonstrate no due weight whatsoever. Inclusion then is a POV and BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

As you've been asked several times before, please quote the relevant sections of the policies and exactly where they have been breached. Simply repeating the same shortcuts isn't sufficient. And Forbes is poor? No. - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The specific Forbes profile is poor, as previously discussed.

See WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:DUE to start. --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, you're still not doing what's been requested. I'll leave it here, as communication seems to be problematic here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope we can agree all but the Forbes profile are primary sources that lend no weight. Agreed? --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

If YouTube says that a person has 3.3 million followers, does that make it a primary source? It's not a claim she is making, it is something that YouRube is saying about a third party. As I've asked several times, rather than blithely throwing tags around, quote what you think the relevant part is. I know communication is a struggle, given your inability to be entirely straight on your talk page, but I've asked this several times without success so far. - SchroCat (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, YouTube is a primary source reporting their data as it relates to VanderWaal. The same applies to Instagram and Facebook. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree with that, but it's a moot point: even if into is the case, there is no bar on using such information, just that caution must be used. I.e. It depends on the type of information to be shown. This isn't "personal" information of the type described by the policy, but is a reflection of their professional popularity as shown by metrics over several sites. It gives a modern audience a very understandable steer on this point. You may not like social media, but it is important. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If you disagree with policy, then don't waste our time while disrupting good faith discussion. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

What nonsense. I haven't said I don't like the policy, so stop wasting people's time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with citing the social media sources regarding the statements concerning the size of the social media following: they are the most reliable source for that information on their own platforms. The Forbes profile, which was written in connection with Forbes selecting VanderWaal as one of its 30-under-30 in music, demonstrates that Forbes considers VanderWaal's social media penetration to be important to understanding her biography. Nothing could be more "weighty". The Vanity Fair article mentioned above also cites VanderWaal's Instagram following as one of the key facts about her. A brief mention of the size of social media following is of interest to Wikipedia readers in this day and age when the subject of a bio article has millions of social media followers. For performers today, social media is an important measure of influence and acceptance. To omit the information would show an out-of-date bias against new media. BLP does not justify exclusion of the material, because the information is "written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources." Finally, the content has been included in the article for a long time, and if it is to be deleted now, it should be deleted for a good reason., that, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but profiles like the one we're using from Forbes tend to be provided from publicists. It's listed. To conclude that it's important and encyclopedic is just personal opinion.

The Vanity Fair ref, which you choose not to use, mentions it a portion of a sentence. If they don't think it deserves more coverage, we shouldn't either.

Katy Perry was offered as an example of including such info. It's clearly noteworthy there, backed by multiple references that clearly show why. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• The problem with your argument, Ronz, is that it doesn't hold any water. There are multiple sources that can be used to show the significance in the media, but only the references from the source (i.e. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter themselves) are up to date. The ones in the press go out of date very quickly. I took ten minutes to find the following (and just as long to type out the damned references):

• "A Star Is Born, And LG's VanderWaal Couldn't Be Prouder". Twice. XXXI: 10. 20 June 2016. following her debut appearance on the TV show, has lit up the Internet, earning her more than 120 million Facebook viewings, 72,000 Twitter followers and over 155,000 YouTube subscribers at press time
• Starr, Michael (14 August 2017). "'GOT' NUMBERS Cowell: 'Talent' driving 'America's' Season 12 resurgence". The New York Post. p. 58. [Farmer] snared 274 million views on Facebook, breaking Grace Vanderwaal's "AGT" record from last season (134 million Facebook views) in just 22 hours.
• "Fender Releases Two, Signature Ukuleles With Grace VanderWaal". PR Newswire. 2 October 2018. To date, Grace has accumulated 647 million streams worldwide, over 250 million video views and 7.8 million social media followers.
• Wang, Rona (26 September 2019). "Grace VanderWaal headlines 'Ur So Beautiful' tour". The Tech. p. 1. At age 12, she was catapulted to viral fame by her America's Got Talent audition; the YouTube clip boasts nearly 100 million views to date.
• Moya, Maria Jimenez (15 September 2019). "Review: Teen prodigy Grace VandeWaal wows crowd at Royale". The Daily Free Press. The video of what happened next has garnered nearly 98 million views on YouTube and set teenager Grace VanderWaal on a path that saw her win the reality television program America's Got Talent
• Smith, Edwin (24 December 2018). "'The death of the electric guitar has been greatly exaggerated'". The Daily Telegraph. p. 29. the teen ukulele player Grace Vanderwaal, who has a following of five million across Instagram, YouTube and Facebook.

Slightly less core to the above, but signifying the view that social media has an important impact

• Clancy, Sean (9 April 2019). "Ukuleles UNITED Every Wednesday, members of the Dogtown Ukulele Band gather for food, fellowship and fun". Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. VanderWaal sang one of her own compositions, "I Don't Know My Name," while accompanying herself on ukulele. A clip of the performance has been viewed more than 97 million times on YouTube.

And that is without delving into the significant number of unreliable sources from the popular end of the press (mailonline.com, etc).

Now, I think it's fairly clear that the discussion of the importance of social media hits in the modern world is greater than it used to be. It doesn't matter whether one likes it or not, but it is a phenomenon that cannot be ignored. We can discuss whether they are primary sources or not, if you truly wish, but there are no bars on primary sources, even in BLPPRIMARY. One of the reasons I have asked you several times to quote what you are relying on (and it is noteworthy that you haven't done so) is that you are throwing policy names around without reading them. BLPPRIMARY does not say we cannot use primary sources. It says "Exercise extreme caution". Extreme caution is being used here. There is nothing excessive about using the figures, it is not going into a point which anyone would ever find awkward or embarrassing, and there is nothing truly "personal" about the information. – SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You didn't link a single potential ref. Why not? Is it safe to guess that not a single one is even close to the Katy Perry case? --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about. These all relate to VanderWaal, as is bloody obvious from the quotes I've included. Stop wasting people's time - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)