Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:52, 18 October 2007

Justine Ezarik

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}}.

I am nominating this as I want to point out that this is nothing but a vanity page of what I called an one-trick pony of an attention seeking wannabe somebody, plus like the livestream according to somebody who informed me, the hype over that bill has died down and so has the amount of google links. Like I always said, this subject has nothing but the iPhone bill to show any other form of notability.

My perdiction of this nomination are, like the previous nom, the outcome of this nom will always come out as keep because that Justine woman is a attractive young woman and therefore it attracts deluded fanboys who will always vote keep for that reason. Plus excluding all blog hits, the number of google hits for her has dropped down to 9,000.

If this stays as keep, well next time, I think we will start an article of some NN attractive young woman as that is what internet always favors, source it and see how long that will stay, which will be forever. Dr Tobias Funke 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The verbatum of this nomination makes me believe its based on the "I don't like it" concept, as it shows strong negative point a view. Calling those who vote keep "deluted fanboys" is a considered a personal attack. There are many notable people who look attractive and are notable because of it (see a whole category is based on it. According to the other AfD, most of the arguments did not say "Keep, Justine is hot". However, the last nomination was "no consensus" because of her roles outside of the 300-page iphone bill, including a small role she did for The Kill Point. She has not obtained any serious role in any TV show as of yet. Her only valid claims to notablity on her article is her contributions to lifecasting (which have been noted outside of the 300-page iPhone bill), the one who brought justin.tv exposure and lifecasting to the mainstream media (as the justin.tv and lifecasting articles state), and her position on People of the Web. When and if she gains more notability in mainstream media, I'd give full support. As it stands right now, this article should be merged to 300-page iPhone billorJustin.tv. --w^{L<speak·check>} 19:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. How can this be "vanity" when Ezarik had nothing to do with the writing of this Wikipedia page? She's too busy to spend time here! Pepso2 23:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete getting a really big phone bill appearently gets one into the news these days (which is a sad indicator of the state of current journalistic standards) but I don't see why it would get one an article in an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When I read about her and saw her picture in the October 13 2007 Wall Street Journal, I was contemplating creating an article for her. However, the one I saw here was extremely encyclopedic thoroughly sourced and informative. She is WP:N as this weekend's WSJ appearance makes clear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To see how she defines her generation see the WSJ article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't see that as worth of mentioning, as the nominator has stated, anybody can write an article of somebody, source it and hey presto, it will always pass afd.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelly the Supermodel (talk •

Yes, with substantial sources, it should always pass AfD. Otherwise we are just relying on the random personal opinions of people who happen to comment on AfD--WP follows published reliable sources and depreciates it's contributors personal feelings. Dhaluza 09:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contribs)

• Weak Delete while she have been newsworthy she is not notable because notability is not temporary and in 5 years no one would think to call her notable. TonyBallioni 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the fact nothing has come following her 15 minutes of fame, plus written like a vanity article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelly the Supermodel (talk • contribs)

  This user's only edits are posts to AfDs. --w^{L<speak·check>} 20:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article seems to be about a lifecaster/video podcaster who has both notability evidence and appears well referenced.[1]

  Further, for whatever relevance it may have, Dr Tobias Funke (talk · contribs) also previously nominated this article for deletion. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plus is there anything wrong with renominating this article. What I pointed out is if you are not a famous actor or musician and want to promote your talent, just write a page about yourself, seek publicity, source any news article and hey presto you get a page here and even it will survive afd like this page is going to and if this does, it shows how downstandardized this site has become. Dr Tobias Funke 20:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ezarik was a well-known Internet personality before the phone bill. Pepso2 01:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment' can you state why she is notable other than some tiny part

• Keep. Ezarik was a well-known Internet personality before the phone bill, and anyone who contends otherwise is obviously misinformed and judgemental —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightlyright (talk • contribs) 03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC) — Rightlyright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment - No personal attack applies to this user as this this is like saying people who vote delete is obviously misinformed and judgemental. Mr McLovin 13:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)— Mr McLovin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Strong Delete I don't personally see what is notable about this subject other than that bill and all these stints as an tv show extra. If this is the case, why don't millions of extras get a page about themselves. Want to point out this site is not IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.139.5 (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the fact she is as famous as a whole host of reality TV contestants and their page gets merged or killed off. Mr McLovin 13:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)— Mr McLovin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete because I have never in my life heard of this person and the article reads like it was cribbed from a resume. Chris Buckey 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, please read below. There are 22 sources, so she is notable. • Lawrence Cohen 05:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Look at this way: Would Edward Hopper have been notable in 1922? I don't think so. He was 40 years old and still had not sold a painting. Among gallery owners, he was just another non-notable artist. Pepso2 09:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment not a good reason to justify keep

comment Please sign. Actually, that's not a "reason." I'm just pointing out that people who are pioneers are often overlooked. The retro view, years later, is different. Max Gaines gets credit for inventing the comic book, but he is often cited as the guy who felt Superman was not notable and rejected the submission. It would be interesting to know why he felt Superman was of no interest to readers. One day, Wikipedia might be laughably remembered as rejecting Justine Ezarik who, at age 40, could be regarded as a lifecasting pioneer and a star in the same sense that Mary Pickford was recognized (by exhibitors and audiences) as a star even when she was uncredited in her films for D.W. Griffith. Will Justin.tv be bigger than YouTube? Curiously, Ezarik was found notable by the Wall Street Journal on 10/13, by the New York Times on 10/14 but labeled non-notable on Wikipedia 10/15. Is there a connection?

To point out, although I am not that person above, even these pioneers will not be notable until they are eventually for example would John Lennon be notable before he became part of the Beatles

It should be made clear on this deletion page that in addition to lifecasting, Ezarik is a prolific creator of high-resolution videos, having made over 200 in the past two years. Many of these are clever satires on such subjects as parkour and Lost. While the 300-page phone bill video racked up almost 500,000 views, many of her other videos are also popular, with viewerships totaling between 10,000 and 50,000. Pepso2 15:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and whenever Ezarik becomes rock-solid notable, the article could be reviewed and undeleted. If she was a lifecasting pioneer, why isn't it mentioned in the lifecasting article? As far as it reads, it says that she was instrumental in getting Justin.tv out there, similar to what Tila Tequila did for MySpace. If Justin.tv gains more coverage because of Ezarik, then would that make her notable? Where's the 3rd party sources that explain her Mommy Pack My Lunch videos? There should be a notablity guideline for Internet Celebrities. Does Ezarik meet any of the basic criteria to be notable on this encyclopedia? Why is each keep argument is met with a counter weak counter argument? If it's not a good reason why, then state it. Otherwise it makes you look desperate to get the article deleted. --w^{L<speak·check>} 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what I'm trying to point out: The article does not fully portray Ezarik, and people who learned of her because of media attention to the phone bill are not getting a true picture of who she is until appropriate items are replaced or added. Is it notable to wake up in the morning and have hundreds of people watching her drive to Starbucks to get a coffee? Certainly unique. Pepso2 16:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete now her 15 min of fame is over, but no objection to recreation once she become famous again, I mean as in more than being just another film extra or publicity seeking Apple fan-gal in a bid to seek fame and endorsement from Apple Inc, also what was her latest stunt, copying the Britney stunt of Chris Crocker. Christiantroy 11:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Christiantroy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Delete WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT. -- Craigtalbert 14:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the original formulationofWP:NOT#NEWS was only added recently by Jimbo Wales, specifically in reference to BLP issues related to an arbitration case. It really has nothing to do with this, since her news coverage has been for different things over a period of time. Dhaluza 00:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as passing WP:BLP and WP:N. I don't like the woman, nor the awful picture on the page, but that doesn't count. Actually, IMHO, it's one its way good article. The closing sysop should note that many of the delete votes are not regular users; see all the pretty Red links. Bearian 19:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment To point out, red links indicate that their userpage is unwritten, and for me I'm a new user and everything I want to write about are already there. Mr McLovin 22:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Despite all the references, still doesn't seem notable, perhaps self-promotion? - RiverHockey 22:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question secondary source references are the objective basis of determining notability on WP. What subjective standard of notability are you using instead? Dhaluza 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: as before, the subject was notable for life casting before the iPhone bill, and this incident only adds to her notability, rather than subtracting as the nom suggests. Sufficient secondary source references are incorporated to far exceed the standards at WP:N and WP:BIO. The only thing that has changed since the last AfD is increased coverage, including the NYT and WSJ, no less! She is also notable for her interaction with the press while lifecasting, which is a unique aspect covered in the article. This nom is wrong in so many ways, and on so many levels, it does not deserve serious consideration, and this AfD should be speedily closed. Dhaluza 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Again. She easily passes the bar for notability as we've defined. Whether the notability is for silly reasons, or because she promotes herself online and on television endlessly doesn't really matter, does it? Notable is notable, and she has more than enough sources to demonstrate this. Also, once she's notable, that notability will not "degrade" over time. The media sources don't vanish from reality, nor the news coverage. What is done is done; she is notable in 2007, for her silly ijustine videos, for the iphone bill dumbness, and she'll be notable in 2008 for that too. Keep.

  To clarify why she is notable, we have non-trivial sources on her for two distinct events (Lifecasting, and the iPhone thing, so it's not a single event she is notable for). We have CNET News, BizTechTalk, San Francisco Chronicle x2, Sydney Morning Herald, NY Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Manila Mail - Phillipines, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review x2, Computerworld, USA Today x2, ABC News, CNN, Fox News, WTAE TV news - Pittsburgh, NPR news, WPXI - Pittsburgh, Yahoo! News, TG Daily, and the Wall Street Journal. That is 22 distinct sources. We should be saying Keep for probably even 1/3 that many sources. I think this can be safely closed early as a "Keep". This article, whether it is silly, or not, which is besides the point, ought to be on Wikipedia. • Lawrence Cohen 23:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The previous AfD was barely one month ago. • Lawrence Cohen 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete for the sake to allow this petty argument to end, maybe she will deserve one in 2020 but not now. This is the worst thing about Wikipedia, you lot the Wikipaedophiles constantly bicker what does and what dosen't deserve to be in this page, maybe better than this, delete all pages, at least all petty argument will end. God when can you lot ever edit in harmony. This wasn't suposed to be my first edit since I never got around to editing one but I think with this pathetic discussion, this will be my last, I really had enough of this stupid site. Lara Dalle 11:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC) — Lara Dalle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This user has made no other edits to Wikipedia, and has announced on his/her userpage that they plan not to contribute to the project[reply]

• Keep per that long list of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If she was seeking attention, she seems to have succeeded. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also amused by the contention that we should delete the article because she is seeking attention. Where exactly is our rule that we should only have articles on people who don't want them? :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]