Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 23

Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This is the second time around The article has been fixed tremdesly so I hope this time it will be restored. The only thing I could not find was another external link so I only have one, hope that's ok. You can find the fixed article here, make sure you look here before saying anything.Sam ov the blue sand 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Automatic link adjusted to link to the original AFD at a different title. Last DRV also linked above. GRBerry 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted for now. I thought you were going to bring this back when you found multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and only one other is mentioned. GRBerry 22:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I told you I can't find any, the other ones are speculative and have absolutly no reliable information.Sam ov the blue sand 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Sam. You do know what that means, don't you? No sources, means no article, without exception. I know you care, but it can't be done. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I have a source, it's Electrosphere, didn't you see that one?Sam ov the blue sand 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS Guy (Help!) 11:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, article still fails WP:V and WP:RS, which is the reason it was deleted in the first place. Nominator (Sam) even admits that he can't find any reliable sources. Proto::► 10:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The article looking bad was never the problem. -Amark moo! 15:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles with only one source and sometimes none so why haven't you deleted them? And if it's because of the fanfiction in Electrosphere if you havn't noticed I remove all of that and have kept all the reliable information and some of this info can be found in the game by using the aitcraft. So what exacally is the problem?Sam ov the blue sand 21:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons. First there is a difference between having only one source currently in the article and having only one source that could be used to build the article. Our policy is that content must be verifiable, not that it must be already cited. (An example article would be Geology, which through the end of August had no source citations, but is obviously verifiable.) Second, standards on sourcing tightened up quite a bit during the second half of 2006, and with more than 1.5 million articles we simply have not tested all of them to current standards. I have total confidence that some are not sourceable, but that an even larger fraction are sourcable but have no sources currently. You can read the essay Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability for further explanation of how inconsistency can arise, with the second paragraph being especiall on point. GRBerry 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never get those essays I read that one and I still don't get all of what you're talking about sre you saying I should but those number things that lead to an external resource in the article?Sam ov the blue sand 21:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The essay was to explain further why inconsistency exists. Basically, because the project is too big, with too many participants, to expect that either 1) everything has been reviewed or 2) that the same standards have been applied in each review of things reviewed.

If you have other reliable sources (other than the game, its publisher, etc...), you absolutely should put them in the article in one form or another. WP:CTT (I think) gives the current preferred form for citing sources, but external links in the prose, external links in an external link or reference section, or a clear and complete citation of a printed published sources (books, etc...) can show us what other reliable sources there are. We all understand you to say that there is only one reliable source available that is independent of the game.

There is a difference between having sources available and using a source, and that is what the bit about our Geology article was supposed to show - it had external links, but not references, and those external links wouldn't have validated a large fraction of the article content. Even when it had no sources, they were available, so it was a valid article. With this topic, in the absence of sources, we don't think this stands a snowball's chance of survival. Even with sources, it would still have to comply to the various other standards mentioned in the AFD. But without reliable sources, this doesn't stand a chance on Wikipedia. I know there are some gaming wikis that might be happy to take it, I just don't know them myself. GRBerry 01:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Patty Columbo / Patricia Columbo – Endorse deletion, egregious WP:BLP violations and nominator has been indefinitely blocked – 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ColScott, including this diff.

Sources accurate (newspaper) Notability established...does not violate BLP since you cannot defame a triple murderer by definition Spawnopedia 18:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I speedy deleted this as a recreation of Patricia Columbo. Obviously both articles should be considered jointly. Chick Bowen 18:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Either this is a copyright violation and should be deleted under WP:CSD#G12 because Spawnopedia is a different user, or it is a banned user creating new pages and should be deleted under WP:CSD#G5. The article also massively fails WP:BLP as it is unsourced and highly negative, so it also falls under WP:CSD#G10. Either way it should be deleted for two reasons. GRBerry 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, huge failure of WP:BLP regardless of who it's about. I don't like the use of G4 as the reason for deleting Patty Columbo (as G4 does not apply to speedy deletions), but per GRBerry, it would still be G12, G10 and/or G5. --Core desat 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coredesat, maybe you can learn something while roboting. BLP is about AVOIDING defamation of living people. Defamation involves destroying someone's reputation. By definition, a triple murderess in jail for 300 years HAS NO REPUTATION. Learn! Spawnopedia 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do some research people- it is NOT G5 since COLSCOTT created the page well before he was banned. Look at the history . Make up some other reason.Spawnopedia 19:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore it is very well sourced GRBERRY so G10 fails. It is not an attack page (how can you call a murderer being called a muderer an attack. So actually NONE of these are accurate. But let's see what you do. This will be right up there with Colbert. Spawnopedia 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking again, I've found at least one version of the article that had some sources, however the cited sources do not verify all of the negative material in the article. So maybe the G10 reason is debatable. But the G12/G5 still stands; if Spawnopedia is ColScott, then the recent creations are after ColScott's ban and G5 applies, if Spawnopedia is not ColScott then a copyright violation is being committed and G12 applies. Since the right answer is deletion either way, we don't need to know the outcome of the suspected sock puppet report to know that this article needs to remain deleted. GRBerry 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:BLP applies to every single living human being, not just to people with a clean sheet. The fact that you feel someone has no reputation anymore is irrelevant. WP:BLP is binding and unconditional. A ecis^Bravado 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then please RIGHT THIS MINUTE go delete the Charles Manson article. It accuses him of horrible things, is not sourced AT all and he is a Living Being. Go on I 'll wait.Spawnopedia 19:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you are logical- BLP only exists to protect from defamation. If I say GW Bush humps children that is defamatory because we don't know he actually humps children. But if I write that Scooter Libby performed criminal acts- this doesn't violate BLP because, umm he did. So stating that Columbo is a triple murderess who traded anal sex for hitmen is not defamatory SINCE IT HAPPENED. I mean come one, learn about the world. Spawnopedia 19:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - The monkey logic doesn't work here Berry. If I am ColScott, then the article SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN DELETED TO BEGIN WITH. Go back to the history. It was deleted by Centrx because the article was by the banned COLSCOTT in direct VIOLATION of G5. So either I am REINSTATING an article that never should have been banned in the first place and I am not VIOLATING Col Scott's alleged and unenforceable copyright. You cannot make up nonsense situations to support nonsense. Or let me put this another way, Berry. If I go and write my own version of the article using the same sources and you gonna us G 56 to delete it? Spawnopedia 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion per GRBerry. The article massively fails WP:BLP. The fact that someone is strongly disliked by some members of society does not give us license to host their defamation. alphachimp 19:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of tools for static code analysis – Deletion endorsed, new article created – trialsanderrors 00:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

10 minutes of no discussion is not consensus. BTW I'm not sure about the reason, so I want a real discussion! Cate |_Talk 18:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should only list Wikipedia articles, I fear. Any external links should be banned. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen discussion. Nothing was right about that close. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with this article so long as it doesn't become a linkfarm like it was (of about 200 or so entries, less than 20 had Wikipedia articles). Ral315 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could someone copy the old article to temporary page? So I can create a category, thus avoiding the link spam problem. Also the new article seems to attrack spam. The deletion process was to fast to improve the situation. Cate |_Talk 07:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted but allow the new one--let's just start over here, and stick with tools for which we have articles. Chick Bowen 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - and recreate - per Chick Bowen and Ral315. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, but allow the new article I second that no discussion != consensus. However, the current state of the article is a good start. Any truly relevant information can be pulled from the deleted history and integrated into the current article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant speedy criterion is WP:CSD#A3 – rephrasing of the title and external links only = link farm. But it looks like this is being recreated from scratch so if the new version stands we can close this. ~ trialsanderrors 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
recreate seems reasonable. I would say relist except that recreate will probably result in a better article, given the comments above. Most linkfarms can be reduced to appropriate lists. There was after all no discussion--there was a total of one person participating in afd, and this is simply not enough. This was not fair procedure, and Im glad others agree. DGG 02:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

And The World Goes 'Round – Restore history under new article; no WP:CSD#G4 deletion has occurred, so nothing to review – 16:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

After I created an article for this notable off-Broadway revue of Kander and Ebb material, I was amazed to discover one once existed and was deleted after discussion by a number of people who don't seem to be particularly theater-oriented. I don't know what the original article's content was but I believe the one I created contains sufficient info to warrant its existence. SFTVLGUY2 15:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the text isn't the same from the original, you have no issue with it being speedy deleted, because it shouldn't qualify. Recommend speedy close as there's nothing to discuss here, but I do suggest the nom add some sources pronto. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history (which I've already done for now). The deleted article was mostly a song list and I can't say any great injustice was done by deleting it, although if the creator of the current article wants to dig it out and salvage what material was there that's fine too. Congrats to nom on creating a far better article than the previous one, although it does need sources. Perhaps this, mentioned in the AfD, might be helpful? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia – Merge closure overturned, relisted at MfD – trialsanderrors 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia - MfD under review
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia - previous AfD debate

Admin decision was to merge. Have another look at the MFD, and you'll hardly find consensus to merge at all! 5 people wanted it merged, and yet there are 30-50 editors participating in this. Can someone PLEASE urgently have another look at the MFD before the page is entirely screwed up?! Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. The prior discussion has been tainted and we are best off starting anew. Silensor 12:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. While I believe it could've been a reasonable solution that could stop all the bickering, it clearly isn't a concensus one. The discussion should continue rather than being closed early. Contributors should be asked to address each other's arguments rather than simply re-hashing their opinion. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I promise to only state my opinion, and not respond to anyone else's. However, do we now have to alert all those people for yet another MFD? Are we now saying that all those people in the first and second deletion discussions have their opinion discounted? Hardly seems fair. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I've put merge tags on the article between the time the MfD closed and the DRV opened. Should merging discussion take place at the section I started at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia in the media#Proposed merge, or should it all be kept in one place? If we do relist, can it be made clear that this is a choice between three options - keep, delete, and merge. And please ask those who support one of those options to say why the other options are not valid. Don't just support your option and remain silent on the other options. Carcharoth 13:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, we can't give only three options, because it's not a vote but a discussion. Sorry, but I accidently said "vote" and was horribly jumped on by another admin, so I'm not trying to make life difficult, but it's just not the way AFD or MFD is run. Don't shoot the messenger, incidently, I didn't come up with the idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, what Carcaroth produced was by far the best solution, something which I said later on, segregate it's contents. Vandalism is a rather high-handed term used by Wikipedians, and will attract nothing but lawsuits from irate celebrities/journalists. As an end-note, I'd say bainer used his discretion in interpreting the policy, and has done so very wisely. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, for various problems exposed during the MfD, lots of WP:ILIKEITs, ugly WP:CANVAS, lots of (IMO misplaced) appeals to WP:DENY, and the closure that IMO came out of the blue. It's best to start anew. Duja► 13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. This was not my preferred solution. I voted to delete outright. But given the heated arguements on both sides, this is an eminently sensible compromise that allows the keepers to preserve their information and the deleters to be rid of a page they feel is bad for the encyclopedia. There's no need for a 'winner takes all' solution.--Doc^g 13:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, so far those who voted delete (and who are in the minority) seem to have actually been the winners in this little debate. If you can't destroy the article totally, merge it into another page and then start reverting (that's the scenario I see, and I'm not saying Doc would do this). - Ta bu shi da yu 13:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please assume the good faith of all. Have you evidence that such a disreputable strategy is in view, or are you just throwing muck about? And it is less that helpful for you to continue to harass every !vote that doesn't go your way. Your doing that was one of the problems with this AfD. Calm down a little, the encyclopedia won't collapse whatever outcome we arrive at here.--Doc^g 13:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I was vigorous in my debate and pursued each argument to delete with as much logic and passion as I felt was required. Please show me where I strayed off topic in the debate itself? Unless this debate wasn't actually a debate at all, and I'm not allowed to oppose deletion? My ideas of a cabal, incidently, may seem strange, but I've seen it first hand. You can laugh at me if you want - that's your perogative. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, and before I forget. Whoever said that I thought that Wikipedia collapse? WP:ASSUME: pot, see kettle. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: my close was an effort to reach a reasonable and sensible outcome from a nasty situation, so that we could move on. I felt there was sufficient reason to close it as I did, as can be seen from my notes (in the box at the top of the debate), but I have no objection to another debate if that's what everyone really wants. --bainer (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of interest, how did you think merging would be reasonable? You see, if you merge then you either lose the characteristics of the original article (and thus your merge has become a delete by another name), and if you merge into it's own section (say "vandalism by the media") then you in essence have the same "issue" of allow journalists to brag about their vandalism! How was your compromise a decent solution again? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you saying your preference goes keep, delete, merge, rather than keep, merge, delete? Carcharoth 13:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I say keep, and that's it. As I've said before, if you merge then you have all the same problems as before, or you basically have ruled on a delete, of which most people did not want! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - read the closing admins comments. They make perfect sense. XfD is not a vote, the numbers make no difference. The closing comments show a lot of thought, and were obviously not make in haste. I cant personally think of a better solution Glen 13:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comments above. And what of the other AFD, which appears to have been ignored outright? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XfDs are not votes. Interesting information, - will improve public relations, - valuable (without explaining why it is), and saying keep as per previous AfD/discussions are not going to impress the closing administrator. Believe it or not, there *was* consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, this is a popularity contest all of a sudden? I'm not here to impress anyone (and in fact, I know that I've pissed off more than a few). There was consensus, incidently, to keep, not merge. And that was in BOTH of the discussions. And, excuse me, but I am well aware that this is not a vote but a discussion. I should know, I've had to have two discussions on the one blasted article now. I don't thank you for reminding me of something I evidently already know. Stop trying to ram that fact down my throat. I also need to respond to your accusations that the arguments made were worthless and without basis. They were not. We argued that it would be interesting and show how the 4th Estate deals with new and emerging media, unless you have forgotten that? They are all valid reasons for keeping the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - the merge was clearly not a result of the discussion, and with all the heated arguments and inappropriate actions that went on, t's easy for people to lose their heads - so the AfD ended with the wrong result for the wrong reason. Trying it again is the only logical action. WilyD 14:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Though this is essentially a worthless usage of the Wikipedia space (not even worth a merge in my opinion), and another AfD will probably be an ugly mess, there were enough problems with the earlier AfD that it should probably be done over. I have to agree with Nick though, the "consensus" was based on pretty weak reasoning and I agree with closure as a delete in principle because numerical counts are not nearly as important as strength of argument.--Isotope23 14:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazing! So in other words, we should be cowtowing to the closing admin? Amazing. So in other words, even if a whole bunch of people don't want it deleted, we ignore them. Has something changed on AFD? It appears to have changed from "consensus" to "who can make the best argument and make it sound great"! So, let the best orator win, I suppose? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree if you want, but "consensus" based on poor reasoning tantamount to WP:ILIKEIT isn't really a consensus. Nothing has changed. Besides, I said nothing about cowtowing; I said it should be relisted and those who opined Keep should probaby try and come up with a better set of arguments next time around because "useful" and "interesting" are not very compelling reasons to keep.--Isotope23 14:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - For goodness sake, then what about those with a good set of arguments that it was to be kept? Do we ignore them? No offense intended here, but it sounds very much like a bias in favour of the small minority who said "delete", with no better arguments than the keep camp! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not at all; some of the deletion opinions were poorly supported too. My point is simply this, if you factor out the opinions that were poorly supported on both sides it is not the landside "Keep" that it would initially appear to be from a strict numerical count. This is all a bit of an academic argument though because like I said above it should be relisted at AfD for a fresh run through that process, and my opinion that this is a worthless page is just that; an opinion. I honestly have no plan to participate in the AfD if it is relisted. I just hope this time around the supporting reasons for opinions are a bit better.--Isotope23 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per above, although I'm very tempted to just say overturn given the circumstances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Incoherent close. Catchpole 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close was entirely against the consensus reached. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse • Unencyclopedic content should not be on Wikipedia. Period. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know that this is about a page in the Wikipedia namespace, right? --Conti|✉ 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was about to say that, and you beat me to it. I'm sure Peter does know the differences between the namespaces, and he possibly got confused by the AfD link. Carcharoth 17:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm quite aware. This kind of thing is just a self-referentially bout of ego stroking, and should not be on Wikipedia. Also, there's a strong relevance of WP:DENY here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Probably best to make your meaning clearer next time then. Carcharoth 17:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, this was misclosed. There was no consensus for deletion; while bainer is welcome to suggest a merge, there was no consensus for that either. Had strong arguments been made for a particular outcome in the MFD, a closure other than no consensus might be reasonable, but there were no compelling arguments for any outcome. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa there. As a meta-topic, vandalism of the project which has been solicited or inspired by media figures has obvious merit. Of course it needs to be properly cited and stated neutrally, and maybe it should be on Meta not in the Wikipedia namespace, and maybe the title should be toned down a bit, but it's pretty clear that several people would like to preserve this content in a place where it does ont violate what is, to my eyes, the only policy it did violate in mainspace, which is self-reference. Why can't we discuss this calmly? If people object to the format or something then surely we can fix that without resorting to verbal fisticuffs? Guy (Help!) 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mu. Several people in this debate keep referring to it as if it were AFD, which seems to show that they have not read the MFD. We are not here to rehash the MFD itself, merely the closure. That said, "Merge" was not a consensus opinion of the MFD, so Overturn (likely as no consensus, despite the AFD result) and take it to the talk page to figure out the next step. That may be merge after all, but that is not to be decided here and was not decided in the MFD in my opinion. -- nae'blis 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Let's try it again at MFD. I think the issue at hand isn't whether it's encyclopedic or not, but whether or not the deletion discussion was handled properly, which I don't think happened. I probably would vote delete in there, but regardless of what I think, Consensus must be respected. Just H 18:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist without votestacking and associated dramatics. The bainer's decision appeals to me, but I don't see a consensus for it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. My opinion is that it would be better if this were simply overturned without relisting this anywhere. This has already been subjected to one prior AfD, which reached the conclusion that this should be kept, with a suggestion that it should be moved out of article space and into project space to avoid self-reference. That has been done. Nothing has really changed, and as even "consensus can change" notes, "it is strongly frowned upon to keep nominating an article to WP:AFD until it reaches the outcome you prefer." And nothing really has changed since a decision was made to keep this. What I think has changed is that the deletion process has become more hostile to "keep" opinions, thanks largely to an increasing volume of argumentative responses to "keep" opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Despite the legitimate concerns of votestacking, I feel it was unwise to not take into account that the AfD had an overwhelming consensus for keeping this but moving it to the Wikipedia namespace. Not too many people actually go through the MfD debates and the nomination should probably have been speedy closed given the very clear consensus of the initial debate. Pascal.Tesson 23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist To clean up the mess with a fresh start. No side taken. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, allow relist. The deletes don't want it merged (I would prefer just a straight keep to that). The keeps don't either. No consensus there. -Amark moo! 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, it's clearly valid. No, the numbers don't point to merging. However, the numbers aren't important, and MfD is not a vote. A lot of people wanted to delete it saying it wasn't worth having a page for this, and a lot wanted to keep it saying it is useful information. A merge is a fair compromise in which the content is kept, pleasing the people who wanted it kept, but it's combined with another page, so there's no individual page for it, pleasing the people who wanted it kept. How is this not the best solution? --Rory096 01:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - merging is not a compromise, it's a seperate action. Milto LOL pia 02:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Admins are called on to interpret the debate. As Doc Glasgow says, in this case merger does accommadate most of the concerns expressed on both sides (even if not their bolded "votes"). Eluchil404 03:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want it merged. I much prefer a keep to a merge, so calling it a compromise, at least from my perspective, makes no sense. -Amark moo! 04:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the close was a decent one (from an outsider's perspective), it doesn't quite seem it was a consensus that could have been reached from the Mfd discussion. Of course, it should be noted that most people seem completely unwilling to compromise (whether through a merge or by addressing the issues that brought the article to Mfd), so a relist will merely result in some sort of shitty head count that will probably result in some form of keep. It's a bit troubling that deletion debates rarely result in compromise, but this will never change until Xfd becomes more than a head count. --- RockMFR 06:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That misses the fact that it isn't really a compromise. I wanted it deleted, but if we're assuming it will not be deleted, I want it just kept, not merged. How is it then a compromise to merge it? -Amark moo! 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - this seems less like an attack against the media personalities.--Azer Red Si? 23:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, reasonable compromise. Why are people so upset about this anyway? >Radiant< 16:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. As far as I can tell, the list was created in article space on 2 August 2006 by Ta bu shi da yu (the edit history was later moved, which is why the edit there seems to refer to Wikipedia namespace). It was PRODded by an IP address on 22 August with the comment "Do re [sic] really need this type of list around here, see WP:ASR and WP:LC". It was then taken to AfD by its creator. It survived the AfD (closed as keep by Mailer diablo on 27 August 2006), but on 27 November 2006 was moved to Wikipedia namespace by Duja with the edit summary "moved [...] Per the RM" (presumably this requested move - opened by ContiE on 21 November 2006, closed by Duja on 27 November 2006). The crossnamespace redirect was later (1 January 2007) deleted by CanadianCaesar. The Wikipedia namespace page was then put up at MfD recently (18 January 2007) by Azer Red (who thought it was a category). At the MfD the page creator mounted a vigorous defence. I (Carcharoth) suggested a compromise to merge to the normal Wikipedia in the news pages, which some people agreed with. The closing admin (bainer) went with the merge compromise and closed the MfD on 23 January 2007. The page creator took the MfD to DRV on 23 January 2007, just after I had added the merge tags and started a merge discussion here. And here we are, at the DRV. I think that is a fairly comprehensive history, though there are doubtless discussions of this in other corners of Wikipedia. Carcharoth 16:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - AARGH. How is it a compromise? My continuum of desired outcome goes Delete-->Keep-->Vandalize-->Merge. I would much prefer it kept than merged. Stop presenting it as a compromise. -Amark moo! 02:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per Nearly Headless Nick. JoshuaZ 02:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse not my preferred outcome, but I can't see how running through the MFD again is likely to be helpful, and the result is within the bounds of admin discretion when closing such a debate. --pgk 12:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Everywhere Girl – Deletion endorsed by established editors, redirect set – trialsanderrors 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Preemptive reminder: The AFD resulting in deletion had to be courtesty blanked due to content therein. Use courtesy here so that doesn't have to occur again. GRBerry 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everywhere Girl (3rd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everywhere Girl (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Chandra

High profile article, generates lots of interest DLX 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere Girl article should be restored, as it is high-profile article that generates lots of user interest. While I am not a fan of "everywhere girl" - more like the opposite - it is painfully obvious that we are dealing with powerful Internet meme. Like the talk page says, this is a well known internet meme - and also a good example of what happens, when too many agencies use stock photos.

Also, deletion of this article has generated huge amounts of very bad publicity for Wikipedia. Accusations that deletion is a anti-Inquirer crusade of some administrators; articles and blog posts "What is wrong with Wikipedia" and more. I think that best solution would be just to restore the page. DLX 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Article --Lawdy 10:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above statement by DLX, and fully support the restoration of the Everywhere Girl article. --Lawdy 10:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse previous deletions and reviews absent any credible new evidence or reasoning. We know that some people like it, that was adequately addressed last time around. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the previous decision. If proof is what is wanted, proof is what will be given.

Her image, used in the packaging of a wireless security kit.[1] Microsoft also saw fit to use another of her photos.[2][3] As have HP.[4]

Someone liked the look of it and used it on their book.[5] And the BBC still use it.[6] A discount card for students![7] TCF are on the bandwagon as well. [8] A company which produces caffeine pills saw fit to use one.[9]

Here's another website who keeps track.[10] They have nothing to do with the unmentionable inquirer, before someone asks.

I can trawl the internet and find more, if someone insists, but anyone can do it. Let it be known that I do not simply 'like' this meme. But denying its notability is absurd. This is not just another case of stock photography. These photos have been used and re-used by far too many companies and websites to count, and they are being used even today. It has endured far longer than other, less notable memes have (memes that have their mention in wikipedia I hasten to add). Perhaps this article keeps being remade and its deletion reviewed for good reason. If it is possible to interpret wikipedia policy to warrant the eradication of articles such as this, the policies themselves are at fault. I've said in the past that some administrators delete the article just because the inquirer popularized it, but I'll happily shut up and change my thoughts should I be proven wrong. The one reason I press the issue of this article is one of principle, not personal likes or dislikes. -Skorpus McGee 12:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to tell you that this is canonical original research. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is original research forbidden also in deletion reviews, not only articles? DLX 14:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because we can't use original research in the article, it is almost always useless for AFD and deletion review purposes. When the issue, as here, is whether there is adequate reliable sourcing to sustain an article, it is without practical use. GRBerry 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion per above comments. To deny the notability of this meme is pushing the bounds of absurdity. Silensor 12:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I can think of few things more inherently unnotable than individual clip-art/stock-photos. A zillion WP:ILIKEIT comments do not override our core policy or our basic values as an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, AFD closure was sound (WP:ILIKEIT does not trump WP:V), and the G4s that resulted were also valid. Websites the stock photos are used on are not reliable sources, and neither is that blog entry. --Core desat 13:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there's ever a place that WP:BIO's "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted" clause should be enacted, this is it. Undoubtedly verifiable, and undoubtedly "notable," most of the quibbling comes from the fact that this has taken on a life of its own as a web meme and that one publication is angry that we deleted it. So what? This isn't WP:ILIKEIT as much as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's notable, find and provide reliable sources that prove that assertion. So far, there haven't been any. --Core desat 13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a few have been, for sure. The Inquirer is reliable, and technically meets the standard for multiple, non-trivial. Our fear of web sources isn't helping, either, though, and we have enough information to make an article. We're attaching ourselves too much to "notability" when our guidelines already allow for articles like this. Meanwhile, the only assertion I'm making is that it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it is. Referring to this phenomenon as simply "stock photos" is an attempt to dismiss something that's larger than that - she's arguably the most well-known model of her kind in the field. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably. But we don't have a source for that. All we have is some amusing detective work at the Inquirer by some guys who thought it was funny that the same girl appeared in ads for two competing firms, and set out to find all the other uses of her photo that they could. Has this been tried for any other stock models? Inquirer is not reliable for this, as it's their project. Has it been picked up in the advertising journals, Campaign, for example? Guy (Help!) 14:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I say "arguably" because people will always disagree when you say something like I said. This is certainly the only model of her kind that I know the name of, for sure, and a quick Google search seems to indicate that I'm not alone in that. This isn't actually the Inquirer's project - this was on various websites long before the Inquirer picked it up, and it ballooned from there. I know I'm fighting a battle I can't win on this one, but there you have it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion The bottom line is that there was nothing out of process about the original deletion and recreations were deleted as well. If we are taking this beyond that fact and starting to argue merit as an AfD, I have to disagree with Jeff here, this is simply a stock photo situation coupled with one publication writing stories about the fact that she is a fairly prolific stock photo model. From what I see there is 1 other reliable source that has taken notice of this (and [1 possibly reliable). It isn't WP:ILIKEIT vs WP:IDONTLIKEIT... it's the fact that this was an AfD and subsequent collection of deletions that all appear to have been done within the process on a series of articles where editors are asserting this is a meme and I just don't see the evidence.--Isotope23 14:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember, that WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are not official Wikipedia policies.DLX 14:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, which is why I said "It isn't WP:ILIKEIT vs WP:IDONTLIKEIT". The core problem here is that it is being argued that this deserves an article based on the concept that it is a meme and there is not supporting evidence to suggest that this is in any way a widely known or pervasive meme. That is the real issue beyond the fact that there is no evidence any of these deletions were done out of process.--Isotope23 16:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would Urban Dictionary be an acceptable source for you? DLX 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Urban Dictionary is probably the furthest thing from a reliable source.--Isotope23 17:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure AFD was properly closed. No relevant new information has been presented. The number of times her photo has been used is not relevant. What would be relevant would be reliable, independent, published sources that have either non-trivial biographical content (for a biography article) or non-trivial content about the meme. I don't count the Inquirer as independent for an article about the meme; they claim to have discovered/started it. Blogs and forums are not reliable sources, and that is all that has been offered here. GRBerry 16:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the ecademy.com site is a blog; look at the very bottom. The Geekextreme appears to be a blog also, and certainly is trivial content. GRBerry 16:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, would Urban Dictionary be acceptable? DLX 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is rejected (by us!) as a source because it is a source that anyone can edit. I've often seen urbandictionary rejected as a source, and it is rejected for the same reason - anyone can add to it, and there is no fact checking process prior to publication. This is also a large part of the reason that blogs and forums are rejected. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. GRBerry 16:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This thing is getting just silly. Maybe we should ask from ourself why shouldn't this article be in Wikipedia? It is obvious that it isn't a marketing campaign. The Inquirer or people related to it are not behind the creation of the page. The subject is noteworthy - you don't have to like either The Inquirer or Jennifer Chandra to see that. It generates lots of interest, is well-known and people are looking information about Everywhere Girl from Wikipedia - probably hundreds of page views every day.
Just for the record, I don't like Everywhere Girl meme myself. But I think that it does belong to Wikipedia - it is diminishing for both us, the Wikipedia editors, and for Wikipedia, that we are even having this discussion. DLX 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because having articles that don't meet our standards encourage the creation of more articles that don't meet our standards, diminishing Wikipedia quite severely. The worst of all possible articles is one that is highly popular yet no reliable sources exist - lots of people see it, and learn the wrong things. I'd rather have a poor article on something that almost never gets looked at; it at least does no harm. Having good sourcing is a necessary condition to have a decent article. Letting this exist without adequate sourcing would lead to even more people creating unreliable articles on the blog phenomenon of the minute. That is not what an encyclopedia needs. GRBerry 16:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a horrid fallacy, IMO. In actuality, not having an article on something so obvious ends up harming us more because it gives the appearance that we're actively avoiding a subject. This is a problem with our reliable sourcing criteria and with our "notability" guidelines that needs to be fixed, but no one seems to think that holding a web meme to the same standard as a historical figure is crazy except me, it appears. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you said in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (memes), our standards in this specific area probably won't change until things change in our general standards for reliable sources. I think sooner or later both Wikipedia and the wider society will develop better methods of handling blogs. Right now, we mostly filter them through the traditional media. But I'd rather let the rest of society lead there, and have Wikipedia follow; I suspect you'd rather lead society. GRBerry 17:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're actually way behind society. Internet blogs and self-published stories have been picked up as reliable sources by the mainstream in general for ages - as early as Rathergate or as recent as the kerfluffle with Michael Richards. The sooner we catch up with society, the better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, policy does not allow it. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor am I saying that it does. Your help in changing that would be greatly appreciated, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. WP:ILIKEIT is not a retention criterion. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would this parallel Lenna in any way? (otoh, Lenna has scores of references in primary literature, which this probably does not. Hmph) --Kim Bruning 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Inquirer... that's an article on a notable subject to which this 'meme', and their ongoing rants against Wikipedia over it, is highly relevant. --CBD 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has merit. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I support this. DLX 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable to add some content there. Given some of the things I've seen digging into this, it will need to be watched by an established editor for a while to be sure that sourcing standards remain high, WP:SELF is followed, and, even more importantly WP:NPA is followed. Anyone could do this while this review is open and moot the review, hint, hint... GRBerry 18:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of it not having enough sourcing here, we have it not have enough sourcing there? Besides the fact that this isn't limited only to the Inquirer, the Inquirer article appears to be long enough without this information, does it not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we end up with a paragraph over there, which can be sourced from the Inquirer - they are definitely a reliable source for that they have said. It seems they keep publishing about its adventure here at Wikipedia, which is why abiding by WP:SELF will be an issue. GRBerry 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. A bit like letting the editors on the YTMND article document in the article those fads the YTMND community considers to be significant. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The merge-a-single-line-or-two (is there really enough for a paragraph? The Inquirer appears to have abandoned Everywhere Girl since her identity was revealed in afd and there wasn't much to say in the first place) was suggested by the delete side (can't remember who) in the last afd. I don't mind this (I think) unless the content is excessive - particularly bearing in mind WP:BLP privacy concerns for the actress (who asked for the last afd to be blanked after it was over. Bwithh 08:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I fail to see why this article in particular is so undeserving of Wikipedi-ation, with so many other Internet Phenomena being considered acceptable. (It seems like a thread on SomethingAwful and Fark.com all that's needed for something to be listed there.) The Inquirer is already considered an "acceptable" news source, even if they don't have a print edition, and I can't think that anyone is seriously accusing The Inq. and/or the girl herself of setting this all up as some sort of viral marketting scheme. Furthermore, even if it wasn't originally deserving of an article, as a "meta-article" it certainly is (i.e., although IMO there are sufficient references to the phenomenon in and of itself, there appear to be even *more* references now specifically referring to the Wikipedia page controversy). There are plenty of other topics on Wikipedia more banal and without 97K hits about it on Google. Etcetera 07:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC) — Jccleaver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have to disagree with the above tag of me as a "single purpose account". I've had an account on Wikipedia for over a year, and make edits when I feel I have something to contribute to a topic, or a correction to be made. What is the standard for an "spa"? 20 edits? 50 edits? 100 edits? Etcetera 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion No new evidence provided. Arguments offered were discussed at very extended length by a large number of users in the last afd. Not a "powerful internet meme" or a "high profile" subject but a self-fabricated sensation by a single tabloid-style publication (The Inquirer) over an ordinary stock photo actress. There have been no more stories in the Inquirer focusing on Everywhere Girl since her identity was revealed in the last afd in July 2006[11]. Wikiparrot Bwithh 07:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Jennifer Chandra, the "Everywhere Girl" as coined by the Inquirer, is still just as unnotable as she was when the article was deleted. No new evidence of notability has been provided, and ever since the article was deleted the only times I've noticed the "Everywhere Girl" name pop up in the Inquirer website is when the editors there attack me and Wikipedia for having deleted the article. Dionyseus 08:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse restoration and banning of admin who deleted article because of false accusations Simply because the administrator had falsely accused the article of being recreated by something that didn't and banning it, then it should be reverted to the previous state. In addition, wikipedia is more of a history log ... in fact, that's what encyclopedias are, to have information. Everything should be defined, unless something else takes the name. So, I don't see why we should listen to users who violate the definition of an encyclopedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScythedBlade (talk • contribs) 08:41, 24 — ScythedBlade (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Restoration requested I came to Wikipedia to find information about the Everywhere Girl because all of my pupils at school were talking about her in my science classes. I assumed that if a class of Norwegian school children seem to know about this person, then she must be notable. From the discussion it seems that one has to be notable in the right way. So, I would appreciate the article being restored so that I can follow up on what my pupils find topical and of importance. CaviaPorcellus 12:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need any more reasons for restoring the article? DLX 13:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing students discussing a person doesn't make the subject notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. I'm curious as to what compelled your students to discuss her, and how you managed to find this deletion review discussion. The website that created Everywhere Girl, The Inquirer, has not mentioned her recently unless I missed something, so I'm curious as to why your students would be talking about her today. Dionyseus 13:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed something, the Inquirer posted something last week, see the footnotes in The Inquirer. That something, however, is trivial and an article making use of it fails WP:SELF. GRBerry 14:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New comment: Second story here, requires a subscription to access the archives, unfortunately, but it was a story on Everywhere Girl in the San Antonio Express-News. It now meets the "multiple" standard of WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet the "multiple" criteria of WP:BIO because the work you are referring to is trivial coverage. Dionyseus 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per the above. --Myles Long 15:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore article per the previous comments. Uzza 15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC) — Uzza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Restore article because deletion hurts the reputation of Wikipedia. I was a fan of Wikipedia and have made a few contributions. Was plannning on making more, but now I believe that Wikipedia is controlled/dominated by a bunch a babies. Dave Barnes 15:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC) — davebarnes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I see that we have resorted to ad hominen attacks. I did not create my account for single use. And, yes, I have made few other contributions. So what? Those were made over a year before this mess.Dave Barnes[reply]

Wow, that comment belongs in BJAODN. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Stock photography and apply redirects as needed. This is a cautionary tale about the hazards of stock photography, and should be included there. It probably isn't notable anywhere else. --Mdwyer 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There's no reason to leave this article removed, at all. There's certainly no reasons that don't apply to every other online phenomenon on wikipedia. Whatever you want to call it, 'Everywhere Girl' is being talked about (and not, I imagine, purely because of the Inquirer) and the people who've come to use Wikipedia as a reference source are going to look here for it. Its absence will either lead them elsewhere, or lead them to research and create an article. If their article then gets deleted for no real reason, that's not going to encourage edits, which is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Sure, there's little reason for its inclusion (but there's hundreds of articles that applies to), but there's no reason for its exclusion. Lordandmaker 20:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki has articles that focus of a massive range of fictional subjects, yet for some reason a real social phenomenon does not meet Wiki standards? Sounds like an excellent excersice in hypocrisy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.233.30.80 (talk • contribs).

This, I think, is overturn if we have enough research to go on. Subject's reaction to the article should count, yet shouldn't decide whether she wants to be included in the wiki or not. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 20:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on the use of stock photography and consumer confusion in my Mass Media Structure class at the University of Washington this morning. The professor mentioned the "Everywhere Girl" phenomenon and many of us immediately searched Wikipedia for it and came up blank. It was only after Googling it that I found the information I needed. One argument for deletion--Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Chandra--mentions that Jennifer Chandra is not notable as she only has 300+ Google hits. Well, "Everywhere Girl" has 97,000 Google hits. I don't care if the information is merged into an existing article on The Inquirer but, if a search for "everywhere girl" turns up a blank page here, then I'm going to agree with David: Wikipedia failed me too. Ironmaus — Ironmaus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'd never heard of any of this "everywhere girl" business until this morning. (I'm given to understand I should be ashamed of myself for that, but oh well.) Anyway, I read a news article that offhandedly mentioned her. Being curious, I came to my trusty source for up-to-the-minute reference information... Wikipedia. But what? Article deleted?! WIKIPEDIA FAILED ME. I don't know what this debate is about, or what prompted the article to be deleted. Having still not found a single word of content about the mysterious "everywhere girl," I will now have to turn to Google and other websites to find out what all this is really about. What does that tell you about whether or not this article should be restored? David Norris 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)— David Norris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notable enough to make it into an online dictionary. Restore!

Over Turn!!! If the everywhere girl cant be here why can this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_baby

undelete this article please there are multiple sources available now yuckfoo 20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn numerous media references, she passed WP:WEB... I think that gives her some credence for inclusion on wikipedia. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previous afd discussion showed that a single tabloid publication, The Inquirer, was responsible for Everywhere Girl's publicity. Internet mentions were overwhelmingly on personal blogs etc. Bwithh 21:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above - a second source not noted in previous AfDs has been found. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That source you are referring to is trivial coverage, one of the exclusions for the "multiple sources" criteria from WP:BIO. Dionyseus 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on new source The full text of the new source is available (free signup required) through this search page:[12]. The article is from July 2006 and is part of a series called "Office Time Waster" in a local newspaper the San Antonio Express-News - the series is made up of very short articles (between 70 and 200 or so words long) which are essentially "amusing website of the week to look at during your coffee break" articles. Over 50% of the 204 word article on Everywhere Girl focuses on the Inquirer's coverage and the Wikipedia deletion affair. Other websites covered in the series include www.stuffonmycat.com, some obscure simple online maze game (half the websites covered are simple online flash/java/shockwave games, and Yahoo!'s own "interesting websites of the week office timewaster" roundup[13]. This is trivial coverage. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Bwithh 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it's trivial. And it doesn't matter if much of the coverage has to do with the ongoing battle, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All this pontificating about what constitutes policy and doesn't constitute policy is putting me right off WP. I came here tonight to look for info on Everywhere Girl, and couldn't find it. I look here to see why it had been deleted, and see all this rubbish about policy. Does it really hurt for the page to be here? Really? I think WP is in danger of disappearing up its own rectum if things carry on like this. I don't know why some of you insist on complicating things. Its a wiki, nothing more, and you are in danger of alienating people. I vote for restoration. I also vote for people to chill out a bit. --Amdsweb 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What made you interested in the Everywhere Girl tonight, doc? Dionyseus 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Memes. The concept of mems interests me, and after reading about the B3ta memes such as 'The Fear', et cetera looking around for other visual memes brought me to the Everywhere Girl. Is that OK? --Amdsweb 08:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reverse and keep There now enough mentions to establish this as a cultural icon. I'm judging on the subject, I didnt see the article, but everyone who sees a computer magazine has seen the picture. Though we might not have a GFDL image, we could link to an image. And one could make a case for fair use on the basis that the image itself is a new item. In fact, there are enough sources for a new article: the Everywhere girl-Wikipedia controversy. This is a case of using common sense to avoid letting WP look more foolish than it already has.DGG 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, we use secondary sources. If we consider The Inquirer a primary source (they created and sustained it, and no reliable source picked on this meme since), then no, there is no way to verify this. -- ReyBrujo 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain that it was only popularized by the Inquirer, not created. So, technically, two reliable sources (at least) have picked up on this, and it is verifiable. The question at this point is notability, which is simply irritating. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Inquirer was the place that "discovered" her, one of their writers the one who coined the term for the first time (according to the deleted article). -- ReyBrujo 04:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I like the proposed idea of merging into The Inquirer. If you want to put it in a way, it is their "symbol". If so, I suggest converting Everywhere Girl and Jennifer Chandra into redirects to The Inquirer, protecting them if necessary. -- ReyBrujo 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That idea has possibilities. -- Zanimum 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore this is a notable internet meme. Yes the Inquirer found her, but I've heard her mentioned on many other internet sites. Just restore and put this silly thing to rest. --Pboyd04 04:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which internet sites? Dionyseus 04:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding request. Blogs and forums aren't enough, they need to be notable sites. -- Zanimum 18:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source to add to those mentioned already. The Stock Asylum - it is accepted as a news source by Google News.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.23.117 (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And here is another: The Stock Artists Alliance, a global trade organization of stock photographers, also reported on the Everywhere Girl phenomenon (although they didn't use that term). The organization sent letters to Dell, Gateway, etc. warning them that they had used the same stock photos of EG. [14] (linked pdf documents may require internet explorer)

Overturn and Relist. This girl has truly been everywhere! I have seen her in Dell ads, Gateway ads, many different university ads; the list is endless. The real kicker, though, was a few months ago as I was browsing picture frames in our Auburn University Bookstore (Auburn, AL, USA) when, to my shock and delight, there was the Everywhere Girl, in photo frames in my own university's bookstore. I excitedly went around telling the story to half the people in the store, several of whom had heard of the Everywhere Girl and shared my excitement. Those who claim there is insufficient proof must have some axe to grind or else have had their heads in the sand. It would be absurd to delete this article.Walker Hall 06:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Per comments above Kreca 14:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The Everywhere Girl was considered a valid WP entry until her identity was discovered and made public. Agreed that the Inquirer tech webzine was primarily responsible for the origin and subsequent promotiing of the meme and the revealing of the identity of Jenifer Chandra as "The Everywhere Girl" however this hardly constitues reasons for deletion. The meme has grown beyond the boundries of the orignator and has taken on a life of its own, not least of which has been the questioning of WP standards and guidelines reflected in this very discourse. Regardless of where your line in the sand is drawn on this matter it is obvious this meme has grown beyond the reasonable standards of questionable notability and its absence lessens the WP's reputation and comprehensiveness. This is my first and only contribution to WP thus far. — Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. 09:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC) ConallB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).
The Inquirer making legal threats The Inquirer has posted an article today in which apparently they threaten to sue Wikipedia. Dionyseus 17:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While that's unfortunate, that really has nothing to do with this article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of that article they directly point their viewers to this discussion. Dionyseus 18:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also unfortunate, but whether they feel like they need to make legal recourse has nothing to do with this article's existence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see any legal threats there. And I also failed to see any threats in the messages that Aaron Brenneman removed - in fact, those were rather friendly requests for comments. Journalist only asked to comment for the story. DLX 18:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the reporter reworded his questions for the article. I do not really think he would say However is seems some little revisionist book-burning Nazis take pleasure in continually libelling us in your pages, a situation we can no longer tolerate. and get an Absolutely. as reply. In case you did not notice, the legal threat is there (of course, unless you have been in contact with our litigious world, you would not recognize the subtle sentence that implies either a legal threat, or disruption attempt). -- ReyBrujo 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the next question is So perhaps we can begin a dialogue.. Seems like a direct threat, doesn't it? And what evidence do you have about rewording the questions for the article? Besides, some comments made by administrators were very insulting - and dead wrong. DLX 19:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The quote is accurate. I'm puzzled that you would accuse a well-respected news editor of re-wording an e-mail exchange, especially when on the basis of no evidence and without asking the other member of the exchange, me :-). Indeed, there seems to be something of a rot in the line of making libellous comments around this. You should be careful that you don't make such comments. James F. (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that is not a legal threat; I deal with legal threats most days, and I only wish that that was all they were so polite. It's merely an accurate observation that the comments were libellous - and one with which I agreed. People making bad faith assumptions about events on-wiki is absolutely something that we cannot tolerate. James F. (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this point some things have become very clear. We have multiple sources, notability and interest about the Everywhere Girl. Therefore, there are no more reasons to keep the article deleted, other then PPOV pushing of some/one administrator(s). So, I am forced to ask those administrators to behave accordingly to Wikipedia guidelines and restore the article - or consider, if they are fit to be Wikipedia administrators any longer. I am sorry, if the previous sentence insults anyone, that was not my intention. Please do remember that we all here want to make Wikipedia better, not to diminish it by our own petty feuds. DLX 19:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are likely to accept the article back if those "multiple" sources are presented, below this post, one after the other. That is what was asked in the previous deletion review, and that is what is still being asked here. Please, list the sources here (it is not sarcasm, but instead a good hearted request). -- ReyBrujo 19:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have already been listed above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I asked for. What I see is a reference to the Urban Dictionary, some original research searching for her image around, and an article from The Inquirer. Again, DLX, please post down here the list of articles in reliable sources to verify the information. And please, a "see above" is not a reply for me. I am giving the opportunity to clarify this for once, hopefully you will accept my invitation. -- ReyBrujo 19:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you haven't caught all the sources that have been noted in this discussion for this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources (1) Not one, but close to 50 articles in the Inquirer. As the Inquirer is not Jennifer Chandra, they are a valid source (see Reliable sources; (2) San Antonio Express-News article about Everywhere Girl (3) Royalty-Free in the Middle . . ., mentions Everywhere Girl. It is somewhat hard to find the sources, as there are about 90 000 blog entries about her and Google ranks blogs very highly - unlike Wikipedia. DLX 20:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort, DLX. At least you are working instead of sitting in a throne because The Inquirer mentioned your username. The first one indeed seems an article about the girl, but the second mentions her in passing as an example of a major issue (stock photography). Hopefully more sources will appear before the review is finished. -- ReyBrujo 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have needed sources pretty well covered now. Actually, we had them covered as soon as badlydrawnjeff found the article. DLX 20:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was an unnecessary swipe. I provided the sources yesterday, and I've been fighting for its inclusion for a while. Sheesh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second source listed, the San Antonio article, is considered trivial coverage, one of the exclusions from the first WP:BIO criteria. Bwithh explains well why it is trivial coverage. Dionyseus 22:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree with him, strongly. There's nothing to indicate that it's trivial except that he feels it is - I think it's not trivial - it's not like theyjust list a pile of websites every day. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why aren't the images on the various websites considered sources? The Everywhere Girl is about the proliferation of stock photography, so therefore the numerous websites showing that image should be considered sources to back up the claim.--207.93.211.50 23:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because that would be a synthesis which runs afoul of WP:OR. JoshuaZ 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really dont see the connection to OR, JoshuaZ; the proposal is being made that we extend our definition of reliable source a little to accommodate this exceptional case, and perhaps it will be found useful also in other cases of visual culture. In fact I do not recall seeing anything in any policy that said a source had to be words. If anybody should be willing to extend itself for new things, it's WP.DGG 05:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't "extend" guidelines or policies in this way, you discuss in their pages and try to obtain consensus. Currently, we have an article about an internet meme that is, basically, a person. So, the subject needs to pass our notability rules, like the ones for people and web. Since the proposal for memes was rejected, we need to use a mixture of existing guidelines. Now, Everywhere Girl is about a girl who has done some pics for an agency, right? Now, this could have been anyone of those who took pictures along with her. I am guessing someone who was in the same session is as repeated as her. Why is she pointed out? Because The Inquirer pointed her out. It could have been "Everywhere Man" or "Everywhere Dog", but they first discovered the girl. Now, The Inquirer created this "topic", and with time, forums and blogs everywhere picked it up. Companies continued to use her image as it is a cheap photography that can be used in many situations ("cheap" as in, not like getting Claudia Schiffer to advertise a school). Now, these sites could have requested images from Everywhere Girl because she was well known, and since The Inquirer soon or later would link to them just because the girl is there, they may get some more traffic to their site. That could have happened, but we have no proof. And without proof, this assumption is original research. So, we go one step back. The Inquirer created a meme, and blogs and forums picked it up. Our article about internet memes has even a section for this kind of use, forced meme, when the site tries again and again to force that meme on everyone (in example, Wikipedia). Anyways, let's see some examples for internet memes in Wikipedia article about it, and at list of Internet phenomena:
Zero Wing started the All your base are belong to us: I think nobody can object this one. It may have been the biggest one ever until Numa Numa, and even The Inquirer picked it up (All your base are belong to Costa Rica and All your base are belong to EDS.

Numa Numa. An internet company down here in Argentina created an advertisement with a video similar to the Flash video shown here. I am absolutely sure similar situations have popped around the world with this video.

Leeroy Jenkins. I do not play World of Warcraft, but by just reading the article, it appears to be quite notable, doesn't it? While it did not write an article about him, he was mentioned at Jeopardy!, a program I know about thanks to programs where people watch it.

Now, truly speaking, has Everywhere Girl reached the level of exposure these three memes acquired? I have not heard about her other than in The Inquirer and around here. She has not been featured in media other than The Inquirer and an article at "San Antonio Express-News". We can condense this discussion in two core policies. The first one is Wikipedia:Verifiability (we need secondary sources, not primary ones; since The Inquirer is a primary source for this topic, it can't be used. I quote Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources; the website of a school or a company displaying an image is not considered a "source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"); and Wikipedia:No original research (we need a secondary source—in example, The New York Times—making the claim that the sites used the image because they knew they would attract more users; since we cannot claim they did that on purpose because we don't have any reference, we must be conservative and assume they did use the images of Everywhere Girl because they picked them randomly out of a picture bottle without knowing anything about this "meme").

In other words, we need something other than blogs, forums, website homepages and The Inquirer. DLX presented two mentions, others can analyze them before giving an opinion. I hope this is now clearer. Opinions like "Overturn, she is well known/she is in many webpages/this is absurd/I will lose faith in Wikipedia" do not help: since this is not a votation, they pile on and give the impression to sites that are not used with our definition of Wikipedia:Consensus that we are nazis. If you want to really "help" Everywhere Girl, find reliable secondary sources talking about her: an interview in a magazine or online site (a real magazine or online site, not an interview at MySpace or some Geocities page), an article describing the Everywhere Girl phenomena in detail (and not as an example of a bigger issue), etc. -- ReyBrujo 06:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Now, this could have been anyone of those who took pictures along with her. I am guessing someone who was in the same session is as repeated as her." - ReyBrujo, this is a reasonable assumption if you have not had time to look at the photos in question, but it is totally incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.23.127 (talk • contribs).
Overturn; claiming that someone "caught the zeitgeist fancy" is nontrivial coverage. Merging with The Inquirer remains an option. Kappa 01:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how a single 4 word claim is non-trivial? JoshuaZ 02:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the meaning of these four words are clear to most native speakers of English, wiktionary probably has entries for them if you need help, even zeitgeist. Kappa 01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Overturn. She was on the front page of a paper!-PlasmaDragon 02:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, keep deleted, already reviewed once and closure was endorsed, nothing significant has changed since then. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC) P. S. By the way, whatever happened to Eon8, a similarly non-notable Internet non-meme that we were assured, in a very similar discussion, was absolutely guaranteed to be an important part of Internet history? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion After spending a large part of the last hour online, I can fine no sources that are non-trivial, independent and reliable. No independent reliable source is more than a handful of words demonstrating not much more than existence. The AfD decision was correct and none of the new information merits revisiting the matter. That said, a single sentence mention in the Inquirer article would by itself be objectionable. JoshuaZ 03:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion Enough sources establish notability (front page of newspaper, even). Even if source of notability was dubious (which wasn't in this case), the fact the subject became notable is what matters. Notability is not subjective. --Oakshade 07:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you hear that she was featured in the front page of a newspaper? Dionyseus 07:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photo is featured on front page of Irish Examiner with story about it. [15] --Oakshade 08:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That can't be accepted, the small photo at the top left of the paper, even if it were real, would be trivial. The Inquirer article on that photo can't be accepted as an independent source because the Everywhere Girl is their creation. Dionyseus 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. Whether we like it or not, the Inquirer is a reliable source. Just becuase they created Everywhere Girl, they are still not Everywhere Girl. Jennifer Chandra or the Inquirer did not put the on the cover of the Irish Examiner - The Irish Examiner did. Besides, ANY photo on the newpaper cover and above the fold (on the very top, no less) of a major newspaper is very significant.--Oakshade 17:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dionyseus in that the source mentioned is not notable in that it is simply use of stock photography.Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. 10:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Overturn deletion The original deletion seems to be purely the result of a few bitter Wikipedians hatred of The Inquirer and most of the delete votes show the author to have (wrongly) directly associated Everywhere girl with The Inquirer. Suoerh2 07:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Addendum to earlier request There are obviously a great number of people tracking this particular set of stock photography and not nescessarily tracking Jennifer Chandra (JC) herself. Her identity is almost irrelivant to the article in that this particular set of stock photography has been used numerous times by many corporations and intitutions in thier online and print media and as such is being tracked by multiple, independent individuals. It is not with the agenda of promoting the images or JC that is of prime interest and JC herself seems less interested in TEG title than some admins here. --ConallBQuidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. 10:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deleteion. Does anyone actually need anymore information that Dionyseus is on a personal vendetta than this:- "the small photo at the top left of the paper, even if it were real, would be trivial....... Dionyseus 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)". So now he is claiming that the photo was faked, based on no evidence whatsoever other than his own imagination. How can someone be allowed to be an editor on Wikipedia with such clearly warped views and bias? Wikipedia is doing itself some serious self inflicted damage by letting this go on & on and I for one no longer trust it as a reliable source. The article should be reinstated, locked and Dionyseus should be banned from editing. - Jonathan — 87.127.29.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
While I agree very strongly with you - please avoid personal attacks. DLX 14:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse Permanent Restoration and Trap~~ Well, since that admin was an a** and was clearly wrong in deleting it, I say we make it moddable, protected from a deletion, and a trap for 7 day bans for all admins who try to delete it since it be considered a hate crime. GG~ -ScythedBlade

Don't !vote twice, or make ridiculous comments borderlining on personal attacks.--Isotope23 18:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCES - a list of sources for all those who have requested them

The Inquirer (obviously) 50 or more stories here

The Stock Asylum - This publication is accepted as a news source by Google News. They use the term 'Everywhere Girl' in their story. They do not mention the Inquirer.

The Stock Artists Alliance, a global trade organization of stock photographers, reported on the phenomenon. Notably they did not use the term 'Everywhere Girl' and they did not refer to the Inquirer (you can perhaps imagine how unsuitable internet search tech is for finding stuff like this). The organization sent letters to Dell, Gateway, etc. warning them that they had used the same stock photos. [16] (linked pdf documents may require internet explorer)

Urban Dictionary

The San Antonio Express-News here, requires a subscription to access the archives.

Engadget Story referring to Dell/Gateway Girl. It does not mention the Inquirer or the "Everywhere Girl" - The Inquirer was not the source for this story (although it was the source for an earlier Engadget story). In fact, the website discovered by Engadget, applyesl.com cannot even be found on the Inquirer site. Engadget is accepted as a news source by Google News.

As well all these sources, a simple Google search for phrases like "Everywhere Girl", "dell girl", "getty girl", and so on will find many, many other references. But it seems from the preceeding discussion that many of these websites, such as Ecademy or GigaOM, are defined by Wikipedians as 'blogs' or 'forums' - even though they contain original, verifiable research - and therefore they are regarded as totally irrelevant to this debate... and on that note, I hope you'll forgive me for adding that whatever the outcome of this sorry little debate, this is the last hour of my life I'll ever waste fixing Wikipedia's admin problems. Goodbye. -g 218.102.23.91 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources - sorry if these are already covered, or seem irrelevant by some. Yes, many are blogs, but some are professional photo oriented websites, and a researcher. So, whatever.. References in support of inclusion:

http://www.rbloch.net/index.php/weblog/more/everywhere_you_look/ http://www.brianbehrend.com/archives/2004/09/more_stock_foot.php http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=57857 http://www.joeycoleman.ca/archives/2005/04/16/u_of_m_dell_everywhere_girl.html http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Christian_Fundamentalists_upset_the_Everywhere_Girl http://www.visualeditors.com/forum/archive/the-story-of-everywhere-girl-5078.htm http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/index.php/2005/stupid-stock-photography/ http://ligsy.stumbleupon.com/tag/the-everywhere-girl/ http://www.netsoc.ucd.ie/~rory/gallery/ http://brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/e/ev/everywhere_girl.html http://www.luckypix.com/blogger/2006/05/stock-photo-girls.html http://commercial-archive.com/112042.php http://researcher.se/archives/2004/08/igen/ http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/11/wsj-on-companies-use-of-nonexclusive.html

While the below WSJ article doesn't mention The Everywhere Girl as a specific example, it does highlight the stock photo overuse trend, for which TEG is the best tracked example. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116467838729434053-M7qaK32f_P0exg6tqL_QMsu6caM_20071128.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top --Wiremold 06:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Source list above The problem with these third party sources is that they most of them do not meet WP:RS or are not non-trivial in nature. Lets take a look at them:

The Stock Asylum What you have here is a brief mention in an article. Trivial in nature.

The Inquirer], while The Inquirer is a reliable source and most of the articles are non-trivial in nature, they are the source that basically named and manufactured this story. For the purposes here I think the Inquirer needs to be viewed as 1 non-trivial source regardless of how many stories they have about this.

Urban Dictionary Not even close to a reliable source.

here The San Antonio Express-News] I can't see the whole story, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and call it a non-trivial source.

Engadget Brief blurb... never mentions "Everywhere Girl" by name. To me this is pretty trivial coverage.

Wiremold's list. Going through these it is a series of blogs, a Wikpedia mirror, and a Digg with a whopping 4 Diggs. There isn't one reliable source in there.

At this point there still isn't adequate evidence to support the theory that this is a widely known meme, which is really the only way this should be restored. There are exactly 2 reliable sources. Where is any evidence that this has become pervasive in any way ala Leeroy Jenkins (who I'd never heard of before this DRV, but in reading the article it is pretty clear how LJ constitutes a pervasive meme)? Mentioning "Everywhere Girl" at Stock Photography or The Inquirer with a link to one (or both) of the reliable sources that have been provided would be fine, but at this point there is simply no evidence to support a standalone article on the idea that she as an individual is notable or that her "Everywhere Girl" persona constitutes a meme.--Isotope23 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Deletion
Overturn and undelete. There are now enough third party sources to fulfill notability and verifiability requirements. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. No consensus shown during the debate for deletion. No valid reason given to discount the keep voters. Hence overturn close. --JJay 20:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the fact that most of the Keep !voters ran along the WP:ILIKEIT or "seems notable to me" line of reasoning I would say that is a pretty good reason to discount many of them in the original AfD.--Isotope23 23:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Smoothbeats – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Article contains notable content, hastily deleted before content added Hafree 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to appeal the protected deletion of the article Smoothbeats.

Smoothbeats.com is a non-profit internet radio station dedicated to supporting independent artists, running on custom-written open source software which runs many large popular internet radio stations.

The article was initially created as a stub outline about a week ago, but was marked for speedy deletion less than an hour later, before any content could be filled in.
Content was soon added and the speedy deletion tag was removed, only to result in a repremand for removing the tag.
The speedy deletion tag was added back in and contested, only to have the article deleted for lack of notable content.
The article was recreated with more notable content, discussion of key technoogies used, meta-links to numerous related articles, and contributions to open source development, only to have the article deleted once again for lack of citations to backup any claims.

I'm curious as to which claims were made that need to be backed up by citations... I suppose that the claim of being an internet radio station could be backed up by citing hundreds of messageboard posts and blog entries that mention Smoothbeats, but simply clicking on the external link to the radio station and tuning in should suffice to prove its existance. Nobody has written any articles on our free open source broadcasting solution (except us), but that lack of documentation doesn't refute the claim that we developed it.

Most importantly, I'm confused as to how this article on an internet radio station is any less notable than these other 168 articles in the Internet radio category, almost none of which provide any significant content other than a blurb on who they are and a link to their web site.

Hafree 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per the nominator: "Nobody has written any articles on our free open source broadcasting solution (except us)...". In other words, no verifiable reliable sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if you are notable, then someone not involved will eventually write an article about you; if they don't, you not.--Doc^g 00:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per the nomination. The use of "us" in the nomination means that our guidance on handling conflicts of interest should be read by the nominator. As to all those other articles, please see the commentary at Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. I'm more than halfway tempted to dump the (partial?) list of category members, as it clutters up the page, but we aren't supposed to refactor other's comments, so I'm just converting the category from an external link to an internal one. GRBerry 01:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this helps, here are some additional comments on Smoothbeats' notability. Hafree 02:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Smoothbeats.com has been broadcasting continuously since 1999, making it one of the longest-running internet radio stations.
- Smoothbeats has been an integral part of iTunes, and Radio@AOL since their inception.
- Featured in Billboard magazine in 2005.
- Contributions to open source:
  - SBTools: open source broadcasting software
  - Icecast/libshout: new features and compatibility
  - Oddcast: bugfixes/enhancements (see version history for 2.0.12)
- Additional comments on our open source broadcasting platform

Endorse deletion, valid A7. Unfortunately, most of those links do not constitute reliable sources - forum and mailing list posts certainly do not, and the site's FAQ is not a third-party source. The only link that's close is the Billboard article, but per WP:MUSIC and WP:WEB, you need multiple independent sources to establish notability. One isn't multiple~~, and even that one source fails to verify any of the claims presented.~~--Core desat 02:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll change my mind if another reliable source is presented. --Core desat 03:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That Billboard article is the type of coverage that we look for. If you can point us to another, you'll have a case. GRBerry 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not all publications are available online, and those that are aren't necessarily available for free. I'm pretty sure posting scans or PDF versions of such articles without permission would be unlawful. That being said, here are a few more features and/or mentions of Smoothbeats in some well-known reputable publications, and I'll keep looking to see what else I can find available for free online. Hafree 04:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times
- Time Out New York (brief mention under "Hey, Mr. DJ")

*Comment. Since I was the deleting admin, I have no idea if I can vote or not. But I would obviously vote for delete. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as deleter - I deleted the article because it had been deleted twice before and it was non notable. So So many Internet Radio stations. We can't include them all nor should we. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The two sources cited above are trivial mentions, which leaves the Billboard thing as the only good one. We need another. -Amark moo! 05:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no credible claim to encyclopaedic notability. This is not in any way a judgement on the value of the subject, only on whether we can cover it within our policies. We can't. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2007 (UTC).

Comment, if you can find another good source, we can have the article. You might want to prepare it in your userspace until you have the additional sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

23 January 2007[edit]