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

Everywhere Girl

Fails WP:Bio and WP:NN. Dell, Gateway, Visa, and all other ads were photoshopped by The Inquirer. Everywhere Girl is a creation by The Inquirer, a tech tabloid news website with a tendency to manufacture rumors, speculation, and outright lies. Her blog being confirmed by The Inquirer, the creators of Everywhere Girl, therefore means nothing. Dionyseus 03:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note Please see the article talk page for some discussion which was moved from this afd to the talk page (I'm not sure why this happened) Bwithh 04:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everywhere Girl ~ trialsanderrors 07:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

PROCEDURAL NOTE

• The afd nomination itself has now been a subject of an article in the UK IT online magazine, The Inquirer[1]. The article, which is sympathetic to Everywhere Girl, directly links to this discussion. The article suggests that her article has been "messed with" (I'm not sure what they mean by this). The article also labels Wikipedians (or perhaps just us delete voters) "Wiki Parrots". Sqwaaak?? As a point of information, I may have had time on my hands at the weekend, but it took less than 30 seconds to discover her real identity once the google cache was found (and I'm habitually check google caches anyway). Anyway, WELCOME INQUIRER READERS. Please read the big red notice above. Bwithh 18:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Votes/Comments

• Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:NN. Zos 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Fails WP:BIO, WP:NN. Wikipedia is not designed as an indiscriminate collection for "bits of fun Internet history" (otherwise we may as well dumpload the entire usenet archives onto Wikipedia). Finally, even if this girl really is an "ordinary looking" person used in several different ads and not just a Inquirer fantasy, how on earth does that make her any more notable than the thousands of other people who also appear in several ads for different companies, particularly those in stock photos? Bwithh 04:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  Further comment On her blog, "Everywhere Girl" writes: My acting career is going well. It is a hard industry to get into, but I am making great progress. I have been in dozens of plays, I have a commercial running here in the States, I have done several short and independent films, some of which have made it to festivals such as Sundance and Outfest. I have a great agency with two awesome one-of-a-kind agents. They are diamonds in the rough here is Los Angeles. So yes, it is going well and it has been my passion for many many years. I feel blessed. I do hope that this may help my career, but whatever happens is fine…I am just having fun with it for now. A budding actor (who presumably wants to be in bigger films) who starts a self-promoting blog/myspace profile but decides to remain anonymous to the extent of having a hidden identity domain account? And who doesn't want to promote the indie films she's been in? Well, maybe her "awesome one-of-a-kind agents" are actually really bad.? (comment struck out based on everywheregirl taking responsibility for the blog herself) Bwithh 05:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Bwithh. --Peta 04:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Paris Hilton. That's who the few news articles I could find seem to be calling the everywhere girl. Wonder why. ~ trialsanderrors 07:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per further comment by Bwithh. --Metropolitan90 07:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Bwithh. Probably the easiest vote I've ever had to make. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not the most notable subject on Wikipedia, but real and somewhat interesting. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Thue | talk 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  However, Wikipedia is still primarily an encylopedia Bwithh 15:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - very non-notable. --Ben Houston 14:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO... and she would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling Wikipedians! Hey wait a second... doesn't this whole AfD violate WP:NOR now?--Isotope23 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete same reasons as last time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems verifiable, notable and the photoshoping claim seems to have been made up out of whole cloth, or at least, no evidence has been provided for it. As for her real name, or not, or whatever - add it to the article, if you like, but it has no bearing on weather this should be deleted from Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it is notable. This picture was used by Dell and Gateway at the same time to sell back to school computers. She has been a featured student at numerous schools. This picture is a great example of the effect of stock photography. FullSmash26

  Should we have articles on every recurrent model in stock photography? Bwithh 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, at least for now. It's not fake, I think I remember seeing her used around. Also see, for e.g., [2], [3], [4]. I'm not sure how's jennaluna's related, but it doesn't look like the same person to me. Maybe add more details to the article as the mystery unravels? About importance, there are plenty of articles that are just as unimportant, but that's part of the Wikipedia charm, is it not? For e.g., Megadoomer or Googlefight. Call it pop culture. ehudshapira 20:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  There's a minimum level of acceptability which applies to all articles. Wikipedia is an attempt at an encyclopedia, not a free-for-all. Every article is subjectable to afd nomination. The Pokemon defense doesn't hold much water Bwithh 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Jennaluna is her. Compare [5] with [6]. I don't know how you don't see the resemblence. She's also Jennifer Chandra, compare [7] with [[8]. Her real name is Jennifer L Anderson. [9] She and her character Everywhere Girl fails WP:Bio and WP:NN. Dionyseus 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Ha, maybe Bwithh & Dionyseus could star with Jennifer in the made-for-TV movie The Unmasking of Everywhere Girl.--Isotope23 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:Bio and WP:NN . Perhaps a section about Everywhere Girl can be added to the stock photography article. Dionyseus 08:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:Bio and WP:NN per nom. Excellent research by Bwithh. 15 minutes of fame, yay. Tychocat 09:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable, a real world example of the (mis)use of stock photography. Untwigged 14:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Again, are we to have articles on every recurrent image/model in stock photography Bwithh 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This article does not pass WP:Bio and WP:NN. Paris Hilton on the other hand passes WP:Bio and WP:NN because she is a widely recognized celebrity. Dionyseus 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Hilton has also starred in a primetime US TV show and is notable in her own right as a heiress socialite. Bwithh 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Ah, welcome everywheregirl fanpuppets. User:Toysrus - are you seriously basing your keep argument on Jennifer Chandra's acting career so far, and are you serious in your claim that Everywhere Girl is a current day equivalent of Andy Warhol? In any case you're exaggerating with your Academy Award comments Bwithh 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Could Dionyseus please explain how this fails WP:Bio and WP:NN other than unsubstantiated claims of photoshopping? --192.25.22.11 14:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It fails WP:Bio and WP:NN because it does not meet any of its criteria. Dionyseus 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The reasons why I wrote the article originally still stand. The "Everywhere Girl" is a notable internet/advertising phenomenon. That piece of stock photography was used not just by different companies, but by competing companies. Also, it has since then become a phenomenon in itself. I wouldn't be surprised if companies are using her photos because she's the Everywhere Girl now. It just seems odd NOT to have a Wikipedia entry about it. -213.84.37.190 15:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment How is it a notable advertising phenomenon? 2 companies used a stock photo? The Inquirer noticed and ran articles on a slow news day? The subject got a blog and played along? No other news agency picked this up. the subject falls well short of WP:BIO and the whole incident falls well short of any reasonable definition of a meme.--Isotope23 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WP:IMP. I believe this article qualifies for inclusion based on Wikipedia Importance due to the discussion. While an addition to "stock photography" could be added I think the "bar has been met" for inclusion.--Celestil 15:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment, WP:IMP is a proposed, not accepted guideline.--Isotope23 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is it THAT big of a deal? You started this discussion saying the pictures were photoshopped, which it would seem was your main reason. We all know that this was a bunch of rubbish on your part Dionyseus. So tell me, what are your motives for wanting to get her entry removed from wikipedia? Sharpshot 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As stated in the nomination, it fails WP:Bio and WP:NN, the photos were never the main reason. Dionyseus 16:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Strong Merge with Stock photography - Everywhere Girl seems to be somewhat notable - there are 161,000 results on Google for "everywhere girl" with quotes.--Bhtooefr 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Most of those hits are unrelated to this Everywhere Girl, and the rest are just The Inquirer references. Dionyseus 17:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Wikipedia is all about being a record for worthless internet history. Bingo! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.172.32 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete as non-notable model/actress. --Satori Son 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Do not assume bad faith. 100's of articles are deleted daily, this is merely one of those articles. Dionyseus 18:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - Sorry, but I feel that I'm not assuming. 201.31.11.62 18:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notable, and Wikipedia doesn't have the constraints of a paper encyclopedia. Richard W.M. Jones 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment All first time contributors would do well to read WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BIO. I have yet to see anyone here make a credible argument as to why Ms. Chandra should be included based on the accepted guidelines for inclusion of a living person. As for framing this as an internet meme, there are currently no accepted guidelines for inclusion of memes, but in almost all meme's AfD's I've seen that the meme was successfully kept, someone laid out a strong case that the meme had achieved some level of pervasiveness great enough that it had been covered by multiple independent sources (see the proposed guidelines at WP:MEME. Right now I don't see any evidence that Everwhere Girl comes close to being a meme. There is essentially one website (Inquirer) out there that is covering/creating this story, her own MySpace/Website/Blog, a mention on Digg which hovers around 15 diggs (compare with this article which has 4450 diggs and still was deleted from Wikipedia as falling below the threshold for a meme), and several blogs/forum posts about this. Generally a successful meme will spawn copycats (like All your base are belong to us or Starwars kid). I've gone through a number of links off Google to mentions of "Everywhere Girl" and I just don't see anything compelling that leads me to believe this is a widely distributed internet meme that has moved beyond the readership of the Inquirer in any meaningful way. I welcome any evidence to the contrary.--Isotope23 18:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - I think it hasn't moved beyond the readership of INQ in a meaningful way, but the readership of INQ means a lot of people. As far as I know there are entries in paper encyclopedias known by much less people. 201.31.11.62 18:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment OK, but we are not debating paper encyclopedias, or how many people know about the specific subject of a specific article in a specific encyclopedia. By your admission, I don't know how "Everywhere Girl" could be construed as an internet meme if it has not permeated beyond readership of one online magazine. That just leaves the WP:BIO guidelines to measure against and I don't see any evidence that Ms. Chandra meets any of the criteria laid out at WP:BIO.--Isotope23 19:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Naconkantari 18:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO and all above. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• NoVote this vote is filled with socks and IP votes and some legit Keeps. I suggest relist as s-protected.--Andeh 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The reason why there's so many socks and anonymous votes is because The Inquirer and The Everywhere Girl's blog directly links to this AfD. [10] [11] As for your suggestion, I don't think that's necessary, no one has been able to demonstrate that Everywhere Girl passes WP:Bio Dionyseus 20:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As someone who's followed her story on the INQ, I'd say she's quite notable. jgp (T|C) 20:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The Inquirer is a tech tabloid news website. Dionyseus 20:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  There is much content in newspapers and news websites which are not newsworthy e.g. cartoons, puzzles, contests, "gee whiz" opinion columns, "funny story of the day", "readers' funny anecdotes", fashion pages etc. etc. etc. The Inquirer's coverage of the Everywhere Girl is an entertainment of the publication's own creation. Bwithh 21:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The Star Wars Kid is notable, and this has been explained several times in this discussion. Dionyseus 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If you want to discuss what The Inquirer is, can I suggest the discussion page on that entry?

  note the word news in your reply... --82.2.218.117 21:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)harestyle

• Comment Perhaps she should create a Wikipedia user account and put all of this information in there. --TastyHiHatWork 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The fact that this has received such a huge amount of attention is proof of the significance of this particular person and event. Further attempts to AfD this article should be regarded as vandalism. --Kitch 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Please assume good faith WP:AGF. There is no evidence that the afd nomination was malicious (and certainly not vandalism). Also, the so-called "such a huge amount of attention" (really? based on what?) or rather the many newcomer commentators is due to the fact that The Inquirer has directly linked to this afd from an article sympathetic to Everywhere Girl. Bwithh 21:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Incidentally, the first afd discussion attracted a grand total of 5 commentators including the nominator and the creator of the article[12] Bwithh 21:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per WP:BIO and WP:NN. Large amounts of possible sock and meatpuppetry don't really help the situation.--TBCTaLk?!? 21:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep: Per above comments. Ombudsman 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete And damn the meatpuppets. Just another stock photography model, there's oodles of them, most with little recognition anyways. Kevin_b_er 23:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, she may not have been notable before, but since the Inq story, and its many, many followups around the web, she certainly is now. (Comment: As far as I can see, the images on other sites were real, not photoshopped.) Failing that, merge into stock photography. -- The Anome 00:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It would surprise me if the number of people who have heard about "Everywhere Girl" was less than 1 million. I have followed the story for years, and I passed it along to many colleagues. It is notable because of the phenomenon of many companies using the same stock photograph, or similar photographs from the same photo shoot, especially competing companies. Tvaughan1 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Noticed her myself in competing ads from Gateway and Dell, and then noticed her everywhere. Perhaps this is the same psychological phenomenon as when one buys a car and suddenly it seems everyone is driving the same thing, or perhaps Getty Images just didn't have any other good politically correct Apple-esque college girls in 2004-2005. She really did seem to be everywhere, and just because INQ noticed it doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't. Skeuomorph 3:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

New users / anonymous IPs

• Keep - Notable. She's a real person, surprise surprise. The fact that she became an internet phenomenon to begin with is notable. Not to mention the articles written. Something should be added to the article, perhaps, but just because she's been found out doesn't mean it wasn't notable to begin with. --TastyHiHatWork 06:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  The everywhere girl fad seems to have been a "internet phenomenon" localized to The Inquirer readership. Bwithh 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  I don't read the Inquirer and I remember seeing a link to that article before I discovered the wiki about it. --TastyHiHatWork 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Techreport Forums [13] FullSmash26 02:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable. As mentioned before the main reason for her being noticed was because Gateway and Dell used the same stock photo for both their ads. Perhaps the self promoting via direct links to her blog could be removed and only refer to [14] instead. The Inq have a good history on the event. Riscy 06:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)riscycdj

  Are we to have articles on every person in stock photos used by more than one advertiser? Bwithh 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  No, but I put it in the same category of internet memes like [15] and [16], they are documenting a particular phenomena in internet history. If this one doesn't make the grade for whatever reason then by all means delete it. But it is quite subjective. Riscy 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Riscycdj

• Keep - Notable. By the definition of Notable 'The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Tens if not hundreds of articles can be found written by different authors at TheInquirer and support the definition given within the Everywhere Girl entry. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22everywhere+girl%22+site:www.theinquirer.net PPB5580 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  Please only state your vote once. The key words in the sentence you highlighted are multiple and especially non-trivial, as well as independent (There clearly has been some relationship between the Inquirer and the subject in the past, if not over this blog). Stories in the Inquirer about a fad it itself created are not good evidence of notability Bwithh 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  I've stricken the second bolded opinion by PPB5580... as Bwithh stated, please only render a bolded opinion once per AfD.--Isotope23 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable phenomena. Easily verifiable - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565635272 Amazon is hard to Photoshop. Perhaps the anonymity was out of respect to her privacy. Not everyone has to deal with weekly articles being written in the news media. PPB5580 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  Welcome, fanpuppets. Apparently she wanted to deal with regularly updated blog for her fans Bwithh 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - this article got me to actually edit something on wikipedia, that surely makes it worth keeping. that and now shees well known enough that peeple actually wonder who she is so again i say keep it.
• Keep. Tummellll 19:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC) acually added by User:69.86.101.78 who deleted Naconkantari's opinion in the process (should also mention that Tummellll is currently blocked from editing)--Isotope23 19:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:Bio and WP:NN. If we use fail criteria outlined by others on this page we would have to delete every actor who has not won an academy award (the afore mentioned Paris Hilton included). The choice of her image out of all of those available in stock photography tells us much about ourselves and our society. She is a valid cultural phenomenom just as many in Andy Warhol's circle (and Warhol himself) Toysrus 14:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable and definitely genuine. When I started a UK university in 1999, the cover one of the magazines in the information pack featured Jennifer. This was a hard copy and 2 years before I even started reading the Inquirer website. (I would've kept the magazine had I known it would become a memorabilia...)--Maxpower4649 16:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment No, your university magazine didn't "feature" Jennifer. It had an anonymous photo of Jennifer in it taken from a stock photography database when the magazine graphics editors were looking for a generic college student picture Bwithh 17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I think he was using the word 'feature' not in reference to a feature article but it actually contained a picture of the Everywhere Girl. Similar to saying the magazine had a picture featuring a tree etc. Riscy 22:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Riscycdj

• Keep - interesting and informative (mis)use of stock photography - no - we don't need to write up every one that has a similar experience... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ratledge (talk • contribs) .

  Note: Users first and currently only contribution. It only took them 2 minutes to find this AfD too.--Andeh 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I wonder how much time Dionyseus took to inspect the thousands Google hits for "everywhere girl" since he claims that mostly aren't related to her (how many everywhere girls are out there, huh?). By the way The Inquirer's references are also about her, aren't they? Also, I'd like to know the real Dionyseus's motives to wipe her image. He's clearly crusading against her, the photoshop thing was ridiculous, since INQ provided working links to the very websites. Anyway I'm not citting any laws or rules, but I just "feel" that an article in Wikipedia about her is very appropriate. Nonetheless I think I would be surprised if I never came to her entry here. When I first saw her article I actually searched Wikipedia for her, and I knew that she had to be here. 201.31.11.62 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - Oh, how could I forgot to mention that! I live in Brazil and I saw with my bare eyes her picture in a booth about students traveling inside a mall. Here in my city! [17] I was amazed. Also, I'm a long time INQ reader and I trust with my heart that INQ had no previous relationship with her at all. 201.31.11.62 18:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge with stock photography. I do not see how it fails WP:Bio and WP:NN.Tj333 18:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  It fails WP:BIO because she meets none of the criteria for inclusion stated in WP:BIO. To put it another way, which criteria do you think she meets Tj333?-- Isotope23 18:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  I think she meets the Google criteria (Majority of first 100 links for everywhere girl with and without qoutes.). On the other hand since over 3/4 of the links are either from The Inquirer or include links to the Inquirer indicating that the people involved are readers of the Inquirer it somewhat depends on how significant the readership is considered to be. Tj333 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The internet is all about firsts, and unique things. This is something that just happened, a unique first. Keep the entry, and let history judge... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.25.2 (talk • contribs)

  Comment: User's first and only edit. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The Everywhere Girl could be considered a term like VoleWare [18] and could be kept by the same reason. By the way, why deny true information? To save disk space? Yes, she could never become an internet meme or reach some level of celebrity, but things are not so simple. I'd like to see Wikipedia more in the "open-mind/commonsense" field than "just-blindly-follow-the-rules" way. 201.31.11.62 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  You ask - "Why deny true information". Because Wikipedia is emphatically not a free-for-all. It is an encyclopedia, not, for instance, a web directory or free webhosting space. - see WP:NOT for examples of things Wikipedia is not. There are guidelines for basic minimum requirements for inclusion - many wikipedia editors feel (or most, with the qualifer of "to different degrees") that without these, Wikipedia's authority as an encyclopedia is under threat. There are others who feel that so long as things can be verified, information should be kept. Secondly, you say that "we are blindly following the rules". We are not. This very page is part of a formal Wikipedia process of community assessment of articles nominated for deletion, that is specifically intended to enourage debate and discussion so that we are not simply blindly following someone's particular idea of "the rules" or of "common sense". Bwithh 21:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Thanks for alerting us about Voleware, it is now nominated for deletion. Dionyseus 21:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. You have an article for "Dread Pirate Roberts"; how different is Everywhere Girl? They both appear in media, they both are nicknames, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.252.202.73 (talk • contribs)

  Dread Pirate Roberts is a key character in a 1970s novel which was adapted into a critically acclaimed and quite successful Hollywood movie (Princess Bride). Bwithh 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Wow! We list the Starwars kid (talk about 15 minutes of fame) and want to remove the Dell Girl? At least that's how I first heard of her, when Dell and Gateway sent the same girl back to school in 2004. I don't know who or what the Inquier is, but I first researched this back in '04 when Gateway and Dell used the same model from the same photoshoot for their back to school advertisments (BTW - I read somewhere that apparently Dell backed down first from using the photo). -- jacste 69.151.228.199 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  As the Star wars kid article details, in addition to far wider news coverage of the events than "The Dell Girl" or "Gateway Girl", the star war kid clip was referenced in a wide variety of mainstream media contexts during 2004-2005. I doubt that the day when the people in the Dell and Gateway marketing departments discovered that their graphics editors had chosen the same generic student stock photo for both their back to school ad campaigns was a particularly happy one Bwithh 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Another note on Star Wars kid...he also made news recently when he sued his classmates for a whole lot of money for making fun of him.

  Comment The Starwars kid was lampooned on national television as well as permeated the internet for several months. Yeah, it was 15 minutes of fame... but it was pretty massive when he was around. I don't see any evidence "Everywhere Girl" has gotten even close to that level of coverage.--Isotope23 20:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - WP:BIO"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". my two pennorth anyway harestyle82.2.218.117 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  There's been no evidence that that appearing in multiple ads is a newsworthy event. Bwithh 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• i was under the impression the inquirer is an online news site...?harestyle82.2.218.117 20:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Let me get this straight: "The Star Wars Kid" gets exposure on US TV and that makes him worthy of entry, while a budding actress whose image has appeared in the worldwide media for a decade or so in stock photography does not? Can you explain this please? Since when was some schoolkid making an idiot of himself worthy of an entry in a site that claims to be a true encyclopedia? Why in hell does "Everywhere Girl" get denied an entry while "Star Wars" gets dozens of anally-retentive articles discussing the films, characters, settings, set designs and far, far more cruft too tedious to go into here, in downright autistic detail? I don't recall the Encyclopedia Britannica devoting entire volumes to Lucas' epic, let alone "Monty Python" or "Star Trek". I contend that "Everywhere Girl" has had far more exposure to the general, GLOBAL public in print, online and elsewhere due solely to her frequent appearance in stock photos. It is not the model in question that makes the original article newsworthy. It is the very fact that this discussion is even taking place that makes it worthy of an entry. Wikipedia is never going to be a truly authoritative encyclopedia without some radical changes to its founding philosophies. What it does well, however, is capture the culture of the time: it is a 'Zeitgeist time capsule' -- a cultural Wayback Machine -- full of articles that will be invaluable to researchers in years to come, but not, I think, for the reasons the site's founders originally envisaged. 87.112.1.210 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC) S. T. Baggaley.
• Keep How about we forget all this stuff about The Inquirer somehow enginering a vast conspiracy just so they can call us parrots here, and judge the entry on it's own merit. I've seen this stock photo on countless websites, billboards, even print advertising and what not.. often without following any links from The Inquirer or even any other sites. The phenomena is real, and was reported on. This led to the term Everywhere Girl, so let's have an article on that. It's ironic enough that conspiracy theories without reasonable proof such as the one that started this initial deletion request are often given plenty of space in wikipedia articles, yet here we're having a discussion about deleting a genuine article.
• Keep Jennifer Anderson is an aspiring actress, and being an actress makes her a public figure, and being a public figure she belongs into Wikipedia.

209.172.92.41 21:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• keep There are articles here which are far less notable. 82.42.169.40 22:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Everywhere Girl herself seems to not want the attention. 132.205.64.80 23:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep i have been following this story from the beginning, it more than meits an entry here on wiki

Discussion

• UNMASKED!!! Well that was easy. Here's the real website of the model: http://www.jenniferchandra.com/ Note how she is native to Portland, Oregon where the university photoshoot is said to have taken place. Also note how her resume sounds similar to the blog career posts. Also note how she looks like the girl in the other photos. Then there's this[19] - doing podcasts for a London company - sounds like this[20]. (although that gig does not appear to have become regular. This was giveaway (she changed her name on the current version of the blog. It led me to this, which gave me her website address. I think this is a real model and there are adverts using her which are certainly real. Having said that, this still appears to be much ado about nothing, and I think the blog may be a collaboration between her and the Inquirer - how to explain the blog's strange anonymity? I mean her talent agency page even has a direct contact phone number for her[21], yet the blog is totally anonymous? I think the Inquirer wants to keep this a long running enigma (comment struck out based on lastest posts by everywheregirl) Bwithh 09:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"jennaluna" also seems to be the one who first posted the inquirer story about her own blog to digg.com[22] Bwithh 09:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Great work Bwithh! Her real website has so much information about her, I agree with you that it's very strange that her blog is so anonymous. Dionyseus 10:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

More unmasking There's more!! Here's her REAL blog: http://www.jensanity.com/ Her uncle tipped me off in an unguarded moment[23] I dunno. Maybe now she's been unmasked on wikipedia, she can take over Rocketboom or something Bwithh 10:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And her real MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/jennaluna It is interesting to note that her real MySpace has more friends than her fake MySpace. Dionyseus 10:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently her name isn't Jennifer Chandra, looks like that's only her acting name. Her real name is apparently Jennifer L Anderson. [24] Dionyseus 11:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE

• Everywheregirl now has a blog entry expressing her upset with the recent revelations above (User:Dionyseus and myself have been specifically singled out by Everywhere Girl as mean people who suck. On the other hand, her alter ego, jennaluna, is more pithy and simply calls us arseholes on her blog). My response is this:
  • The short (mean, sucking, but still truthful) answer is that such risk of exposure is the nature of faddish internet celebrity in the age of personal websites, public personal blogs and myspace. Multiplied by 10 when the faddish internet celebrity has a wikipedia entry and a well-intentioned, but still self-promoting anonymous blog (which highlights that very wikipedia entry)
  • Longer answer- this is because the wikipedia community is inherently full of people who need to verify through research - with many or even most of us concerned with encyclopedic notability. This, after all, is not a free-for-all site. It's an attempt at an encyclopedia, and one which has to deal with a large load of transient fads, potential hoaxes, possible vanity articles, and unverified content everyday. I sympathize with Jennifer's upset, but lack of familiarity with the nature of Wikipedia does not ethically or procedurally exempt the subjects of articles from the usual Wikipedia fact-checking. It may feel like being singled out - but really, this is a routine aspect of Wikipedia editing, so Jennifer shouldn't feel that she's being subject to standards of scrutiny different from anything else on the deletion discussion pages. Aside from the specific guidelines and policies Wikipedia has in place which frown on marketing/promotional activities on Wikipedia, this process is why Wikipedia is a poor place for such activities. Also, don't take the nomination for deletion personally - the nomination simply means that someone thinks that there should be a discussion about whether a subject is suitable for an online encyclopedia and is not about whether they are significant or important beyond that.
  • Some clarifications about aspects which Jennifer may be confused about, based on her emotional posting. Speculation (mostly, I think, followed by efforts at verification and sourcing) is a key part of the Wikipedia article for deletion discussion process. Dionyseus's original nomination was based on his genuine belief that the whole everywheregirl fad was a hoax undertaken by The Inquirer (the UK online IT magazine). He seems to have now modified that stance, judging by his striking out parts of his nomination. I too was suspicious that this may be an invention for marketing purposes. My investigation was motivated by Wikipedia's core principle of verification, and my results suggested the blog was not a hoax. (I would also note that The Inquirer previously tried to uncover her real identity to the point of asking Inquirer readers to help identify her[25]). I now believe that Jennifer's everywheregirl blog is genuine, although I maintain my stance that the subject is not suitable for an encylopedia on notabiity grounds. During the process of speculation, I wrote a couple of off-the-cuff comments about Jennifer's agents and possible collusion with The Inquirer, which seem to have particularly upset Jennifer. I wholeheartedly retract those speculative comments. Though please note that the discussion, I think anyway (I can't speak for Dionyseus - I think he's mainly concerned about the Inquirer dimension), is now not concerned with whether or not the everywheregirl blog is genuine but whether the whole affair deserves its own article in a major encyclopedia.
  • Jennifer seems to be a genuinely nice person. She also seems to be unsure about how best to best deal with her modest degree of internet celebrity and the related online fans, and is ambivalent about how much exposure she should seek. Perhaps I have an unsophisticated idea about the motives of budding Hollywood actors (largely based on HBO's Unscripted - this whole affair would make a great episode storyline if that show is ever revived), so I'll accept that there is no collusion between Jennifer and the Inquirer, and that the anonymity of the blog (plus the digg/wikipedia/myspace promotional dimension) was not necessarily sufficient grounds for not assuming good/pure intentions. But I was half-serious about Jennifer going on to take over Rocketboom - specific examples aside, if Jennifer decides to continue to assert her Everywheregirl status, then I suggest she do it wholeheartedly in the spirit of celebrity (rather than the ambivalent mixing of anonymity and promotion) and perhaps she'll have a good shot at finding a rewarding place in the sun in the Web 2.0 world (perhaps in an online video revival of Unscripted - harness the power of youtube, Jennifer!). Whether she chooses that path or not, very possibly, one day, Jennifer will be notable enough that even I would approve of an encyclopedia article about her. Best of luck to her. Bwithh 08:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I wrote a response at her Everywhere Girl blog, it is currently awaiting her approval, but one of the things I said is that perhaps a small section about Everywhere Girl can be added to the stock photography article. Dionyseus 08:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A redirect and merge into the stock photography article is something that I could live with, still does not remove my preference for this to remain a separate article. This is the best example I am aware of that shows have stock photography can be overused. In terms of the number of people coming over to Wikipedia, I think that shows how this is notable. Hopefully, these people stay here and contribute elsewhere. I do not believe for one second there is any ill motive for this nomination, this is the great thing about Wikipedia, we are all in it together. FullSmash26 02:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FullSmash26, I must admit that this wiki entry has been the first I have taken interest in and now I am keen to contribute further to the Wikipedia, no matter what the outcome of this deletion nomination is. The Wikipedia system is amazing! Riscy 02:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)