Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lonelygirl15 (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 unanimous keep; longtime contributors and new users agree. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lonelygirl15[edit]

A DRV consensus (heavily infested with spammers, but they were ignored) overturned the previous AfD on this subject in light of new evidence (including a New York Times article, published since the last AfD.) Please consult the DRV for the citations to new evidence. The version here is the most recent sourced version in the article history -- other, better versions may be in there for those who wish to check. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for fresh consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to be honest I don't care one way or another if this gets kept or deleted, but unlike the last AfD, there are now finally 2 non-blog sources provided which could be considered multiple sources under WP:BIO if one is being generous.--Isotope23 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This Page appears to have more content from a user who archived it. To re-iterate the main points from the previous discussion, it's been mentioned in multiple media sources, a small sample of which are here:
  1. New York Times, 25 August, "Today in Business"
  2. Chicago Tribune, 23 August, "Shoot From The Clip"
  3. New York Magazine, 28 August, by Adam Sternbergh "Hey There, Lonelygirl"
  4. New York Newsday, 17 August, by Megan Chan "Channeling into a new generation"
  5. Denver Post, 1 August, "Click These"
  6. Alameda Times-Star, 23 July, by Candace Murphy "Today's kids have their own outlets for creativity"
  7. The Times of London, 19 August, by Jonathan Richards "Worldwide acclaim for lonely girl"
  8. AgoraVox, 21 August, by Matthew Ingram "What Is YouTube Good For?"
  9. Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, 6 August, (trans) "The Webcam Generation has a new star: "Lonelygirl15. But is she authentic?"

I came here to find out about the lonelygirl15 phenomenon and found out. Thanks It's notable enough to make it into print media, it can be verified, and Wikipedia is in a position to be ahead of the curve in writing about topics like this, not behind it. I'm with the New York Times on this one.--BigCow 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, several of those could probably be considered trivial coverage, but #3 and #7 (both linked from the article) are not... the are full writeups on the subject.--Isotope23 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, #9 is also entirely about the subject, and questions its authenticity. A rough translation can be read here.TimB 17:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, without the translation I couldn't tell... mein Deutsch ist sehr schlecht.--Isotope23 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From that link: "The debate rages at Wikipedia over whether or not Lonelygirl15 should have an entry in the online encyclopedia. If you have an account, please go to the Deletion Review and chime in (preferably supporting Undelete) about the matter." Heh. No comment. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - multiple independent sources, non-trivial, and all verifiable -- Whpq 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For pete's sake, leave the article alone for one freaking minute and let it grow organically. Over the next few weeks/months, I predict these videos will grow even more in popularity and the truth behind their intent will become clear. Wikipedia needs to be able to move with trends like this, not ignore them in fear of appearing unencyclopedic. -Asriel
  • Comment Wikipedia is not here to document trends or bandy in crystalballism about whether or not the intent of these videos will ever become clear. Up until recently (i.e. during the DRV) the subject did not meet WP:BIO and thus did not merit an article. Now it has been demonstrated the subject does meet WP:BIO and it appears the article will stay. I'd say the process worked quite nicely.--Isotope23 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Decent news story, multiple sources. Older versions were better, but allowing it to grow would work too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjackrian (talk)
  • Comment As noted above, this person has been covered in the conventional media many times. However, the number of articles is not so great as it first appears; there seem to be about four "primary" articles that were syndicated and appeared elsewhere with different titles but identical or substantially identical text. Uucp 19:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple sources, Internet celebrity, reported in Hollywood People magazine (a YouTube sidebar). Things have changed since two months ago. People should REALIZE THAT. 65.30.40.87 20:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's no denying the rising amount of attention from the mainstream press this girl is getting. Serpent-A 21:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - it's a phenomenon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.170.200.19 (talk • contribs)
  • keep, obviously. per sources listed above and on (now deleted) talk page for the article itself. ... aa:talk 21:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. theres no denying that something is happening here. though correct wikipedia is not here to follow trends....wikipedia cannot simply ignore the fact that the phenomenon exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.36.155 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Though I find this sort of "phenomenon" to be insipid, the media coverage addresses notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I officially have to abstain from this, but I just want it on record that I'm very uncomfortable with Wikipedia having an article about an Internet personality without a real name to go along with it. Danny Lilithborne 00:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Wikipedia has plenty of valid articles about people whose actual identities are complete mysteries. Check out Jack the Ripper, Subcomandante Marcos, Tank Man, and D.B. Cooper, among others. Serpent-A 03:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Those are fine with me because their fame (or infamy) is not attached to the Internet and has real-world relevance. Danny Lilithborne 03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per OhNoitsJamie. I voted "delete" last time, and I am coming around to the idea that this may now pass WP:BIO. Whilst it's wiki's declared policy not indulge in speculation (i.e. be ahead of the curve), LG15 does appear to have become a phenomenon. The reputable broadsheets have picked up and crystallised the grassroot movement which wiki was confined to ignoring. It is not against wiki policy to be "on the ball". Ohconfucius 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quoting myself from the undelete discussion: The fact that there are articles about other Youtube people at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Notable_YouTube_users shows that people are looking for them. Several of which have passed AfD's of their own. Having watched this debate, to me, the real reason for the delation really seems to be less about the rules of Wiki, and more about the preceived popularity of who the article is about. That coupled with the reasons above means that this article should exist. Dave 05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And now a comment: How does internet fame differ from real world? The internet is part of the real world. And please, no "I know it when I see it" answers which amount to little more than a cop-out. Dave 05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not part of this debate since I haven't voted, but to say "the Internet is part of the real world" is a knowing oversimplification. Danny Lilithborne 05:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another Comment Same could be said for any other medium, including TV, movies, and newspapers. Dave 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everyking 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because i wrote it and its great and i knew i woz right the first time (please ensure irony and sarcasm filters are operational.) Petesmiles 09:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Barely notable, barely interesting, but meets WP:V, WP:BIO standards, and whatever this thing is leading up to/in to will likely need it's own article as well. Ronabop 16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I somewhat agree with Ronabop. Barely notable, completely uninteresting, meets WP:BIO just barely (if you remove all of the non-RSs, there are a few left), but I'm thinking it's not leading up to/into anything. I'm sure we'll be back at AFD in six months after all of the fanboys have given up on her. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I heard the name today, wanted to find out more, and turned to wikipedia to do so. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? jenniedo 1 September 2006
  • Keep Just read the LA Times article on her/the hunt and immediately turned to Wiki for mo'. The NYTimes is also following her exploits at their Screens column/blog. jengod 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the media coverage alone pushes this out of NN territory. I agree the article may need to be looked at later, but for now it works for me. 23skidoo 02:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It’s pretty dull at the moment but Wikipedia was the first place I looked to get an attempt at an objective view on this 'event'. Whilst there are "millions" (quotes one of the articles) of people following this we should document it. If it later proves a non-event, that is another matter. --Nige 12:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitly notable and something people will look up on Wikipedia. bbx 16:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there should be no more talk of deletion. It's obvious that this is now a notable and much talked of phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.21.68 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, this thing has been all over mainstream news. Lots of people are following this closely. Jawed 20:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable and verifiable. WP:NOT paper. --Myles Long 04:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is fairly awfully written, but the subject is definitely notable. Pablosecca 05:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And hopefully this will be the last time we have to argue about this --BHC 10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I heard about this on NPR, and then looked it up. It's definitely worth keeping. 74.229.34.227 05:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems obvious to me she has become a notable celebrity. 24.158.119.42 05:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is clear lonelygirl15 has made her mark (or her producers have). More are learning about her daily and when they turn to wiki there won't be a lonelygirl15 entry?? There should be an entry. --Barafost 10:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's actually being talked about in forums that are not YouTube. Plus, my parents have heard of her. Maybe she wasn't extremely well-known a month ago, but when you have the New York Times and NPR doing stories on you, it definitely warrants a wikipedia article. Kdar 13:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Popular culture phenomenon --Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 13:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I preface by sayign that I realize I do not have a lot of edits. When this article was for AfD last time, I could see saying that she was not notable enough, but I think her popularity has skyrocketed since that time even further. There do exist multiple sources including newsworthy sources such as the LA Times referencing her. Also, the whole controversy involving the trademark application along with a few other theories not yet mentioned in the article makes this possible to be a genious marketing event. I think because of all this, she is notable enough to have an entry. 24.168.219.121 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, The above vote was posted by myself. I didn't realize I was not logged in Marsman57 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Encyplopedias mustn't dictate what interests people (e.g., articles on the fruit fly need to be there, though not of interest to everyone.). Lonleygirl15 is video literature.... real, fictional, or semi-fictional, boring, interesting? no matter. It is a cultural phenomenon that exists and captures the attention of a lot more people than, say, difficult academic new music, or arcane Sanskrit poetry. Elitist intellectualism has no place in legislating what constitutes general human knowledge. Semari1 16:47, 4 September 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lonelygirl15_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1087621643"