Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 14

14 July 2006

Everywhere Girl

I believe this entry should be restored and random peasants like Bwithh, Dionyseus, Calton, etc, prevented from acting like war winners who decide which facts will be considered history. Let the time be the judge here where the space is not limited.

See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Everywhere_Girl_(2nd_nomination).

It is absurd that this page has been speedily deleted. The claim is tha tit is nothing more than a marketing ploy invented between The Inquirer and Jennifer Chandra. Which is false - because if it is true, then it is the dammned slowest marketing campaign I have ever seen - spanning years to get a little recognition.

I believe this represents a genuine cultural phenomena. It may have begun as a rather tongue in cheek, “Oh look! There she is again, this time hawking a competitors product.”

If wikipedia allows the most inane things in sci-fi or fantasy to be expounded upon in great length, then surely it can allow legitimate phenomena to be articled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.28.114 (talk • contribs) 13:32, July 14, 2006 - moving improperly placed request --Calton (UTC)

• Keep deleted Also looks like the poor dears at the Inquirer are so upset at Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 13:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restore Inane things in fantasy vs inane things in reality. Having personally followed the story for years, it's indeed symbolic of our times. Especially considering Internet_phenomenon exists - hampster dance, goatse, singing asian kids, why not everywhere girl? --- 68.41.199.229 14:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I've notified Aaron Brenneman of this DRV (and in rhyming couplets, no less), though he likely already knows about it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that notification, D. I think I said everything I could in the close, really. I'll say more if anyone wants, of course. Always happy to have my work reviewed, no drama if anyone disagrees. - brenneman ^{L} 14:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted This was not speedy deleted despite the nominator's claim, the discussion lasted for a bit over four days. Also, The Inquire has published a new article today directly attacking me, User:Bwithh, and Wikipedia in general. [1] Dionyseus 14:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Four days? Oops. UTC error... I've closed several AfDs early today. - brenneman ^{L} 14:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Herm. in that case, maybe reopen for 24 hrs and reclose again, for the sake of process ? I dunno. One for the admins. Bwithh 15:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure The attempted repost of the article (after the original was deleted) was speedily deleted, but the original went through a lengthy afd. The user who brought this issue to deletion review does not raise any issues about process, but seems to be just repeating arguments already made in the afd Bwithh 14:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Bwithh has expressed my sentiment better than I could hope to. If the article had been speedied, I might have second thoughts, but it's gone through a full AFD. I can only express a confused feeling toward outside users trying to come in and start trouble, particularly when the trouble in question is to do with an unabashed attempt at ballot stuffing. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Polly want notability. Keep deleted, no reasons given why the AfD should be overturned apart from some online website declaring we're about to go under, making it the lucky 45,295,748th entry in the "Wikipedia's End Is Nigh" contest. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure. The first AfD ended with no consensus but I adjudge the arguments for deletion as stronger even then. The second AfD had lots of good discussion and the closer did a very good job of giving background on the process and of explaining reasons for the close. Very solid close in my view and no reason to overturn. DRV is not about the article itself, it's about process. Process was followed, and the right result reached, in my view. Note: If someone wants to merge some of this text into Stock photography if it makes sense, I am happy to temporarily undelete and userify for their convenience, just ask. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Questions for the Inquirer/Inquirer Readers
  • Why does the Inquirer think that the Everywhere Girl will have a better chance of maintaining an article in Larry Sanger's expert-driven Wikipedia fork project? I'd imagine that the expert editors of that project would simply speedy delete an Everywhere Girl article without a public afd process. Or maybe even the public wouldn't have access to editing/creating on the expert wikipedia anyway. Bwithh 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What exactly is a "Wikpedia Parrot"?

• Parrot because everyone thoughtlessly repeats what everyone else says. ---68.41.199.229 22:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Bwithh 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's like your average editor, but with feathers, I suppose. After all, who can divine the motivation of British online tech-magazines that unprofessionally harbot hateful grudges? --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure. DRV makes no reasonable claim why this should even be reconsidered. It is simply sour grapes.--Isotope23 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Journalistic Gem I somehow missed until now this sparkling gem of a Inquirer quote about how that esteemed publication views Everywhere Girl (from last month, before the afd): "CHEAP SHOTS ARE like Everywhere Girl stories, nothing for a long time, then when you least expect it, they flow like a journalist who didn't listen to advice on eating street meat in Taiwan."[[2]]. Remarkable sentiment. Just about sums it all up. Perhaps if we had cited it earlier on, we wouldn't have had to go through such a sligfest Bwithh 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, salute Aaron for one of the most cogent AfD closures in living memory, and trout-slap the anon requester for using pejorative language. The "random peasants" have all the good arguments in this case. Just zis Guy you know? 18:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mister, I bet you already know what you could do instead of trout-slapping me without me having to use pejorative language again. I am standing behind my words above and although you have a signature and I don't, trust me -- you are equally anonymous. I have yet to see ONE good argument for deleting this entry. All those policies mentioned are not so strict that one has to follow them blindly, they are just a guideline. I don't know about you, but I would rather follow a leader who uses his sight and choses his path wisely on each crossing instead of one who is blind and strictly follows the road leading into the abyss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.200.209.71 (talk • contribs) .

Moreover, if the intent of wikipedia is to have an entry on everything that is relevant, then this entry should be restored. If not, then all the entries for all the American fabricated pop culture icons (Britney Spears comes to mind first) should also be deleted because people from Europe and Asia don't care about them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.200.209.71 (talk • contribs) .

Actually I am readily identifiable and my identity is no secret. If you stand by your comments above, I'll happily block you for violating WP:NPA. And for the record I would be overjoyed if all the so-called "slebrities" were deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 19:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are identifiable then sign with your real name and last name and back up your votes, edits and comments. I hereby suggest a change to the wikipedia so that every editor is obliged to have an accurate CV. That way people could verify their credibility on the subject they have chosen to participate in, and maybe even vote for their favorite editors. While you are blocking me, you may as well consider blocking Calton because he also violated WP:NPA by attacking The Inquirer readers and poor people from all over the world in his comment furhter below. I am glad that we at least agree on the celebrities but until I see Britney zapped I won't be happy about deletion of this entry either. If I could chose between those two I would keep this one although Britney seems to be more "notable" by wikipedia double standards.

Comment. That violates the entire principle of allowing casual editing. You could always propose it, but I doubt it would pass community consensus. Also, might I suggest you are taking this WAY TOO SERIOUSLY? It's a wikipedia article. If we all went stomping around and moaning on our blogs every time the community decided against our opinion, we wouldn't get any real editing done. The basic principle you must accept if you wish to use wikipedia is that group consensus is greater than your opinion when the two conflict. That's why we are a collaborative project. --tjstrf 00:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Tthere are at least two obvious flaws in the logic of the above anonymous. The first is that I do sign with my real name, and if you follow the link to my talk page you'll get my full' name and enough additional info that you could probably find me in the phone book. The second is the usual "if foo is deleted then bar must be deleted" canard, which usually fails to acknowledge that foo once ran for senior debating captain abd bar was a two-term President of the United States. If anyone is taking this way too seriously it would appear to be Mr. Anon. Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and remind the nominator of what happened on Bastille Day with the peasants. Geogre 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, the process was correctly followed. The closing admin went to extreme length to clarify the decision using the out-of-fashion good sense and logic. I wouldn't bother trying to pick the logic out of a The Inquirer article though... it's not one of their strong points. - Motor (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but they copy Private Eye catchphrases, which makes them a bastion of British ironic humour. Or not. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - looks like a good process to me, the notability of the "actress" involved wasn't established, the "meme" seems to be pushed by one source of questionable use, and the whole thing just gave me a bloody headache. Ugh. Tony Fox (speak) 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. Looking at the first vote section, from which new and unregistered users have been remove I count 16 keeps and 16 deletes, and as such the deletion cannot be argued based on consensus. I also note that what I consider good arguments for keeping have been made, among them
  • "featured in countless ads, so she is notable as a model. She has also been subject of a number of news articles" (me)
  • "Wikipedia doesn't have the constraints of a paper encyclopedia."
  • "As someone who's followed her story on the INQ, I'd say she's quite notable."
  • "she may not have been notable before, but since the Inq story, and its many, many followups around the web, she certainly is now."

I also note that she the article was first listed for deletion with the argument that her appences in ads were a hoax, simultaneosly with the afd Dionyseus posted on the now deleted talk page that "All the ads were photoshopped" (this claim is completely false). The AFD debate was somewhat colored by this beginning, especially the first votes.

Some people argue that The Inquirer is not trustworthy, but it has consistently posted links to the online ads, so there really is little room for doubt.

I also note that there is a strong tendency to discard good arguments, just because there are a number of IP users who support the same end, but perhaps use the wrong means. Thue | talk 21:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

adding a comment from the now deleted talk page:

"Several months ago, when I wanted to find out more about Everywhere Girl, the first place I looked was Wikipedia. Moreover, I *expected* Wikipedia to have an article about it. I trust that many others had similar expectations."

Thue | talk 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Then that user should look for "Everywhere Girl" in The Inquirer, seeing as how they are obsessed with her. As for the claim that the photos were photoshopped, I dropped that claim, she still fails WP:Bio and she doesn't meet any criteria for a meme. Dionyseus 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, Keep deleted. Nothing out of process with the Afd. Aaron was very clear in his summary, and I second Guy in his praise. The subject herself is not notable, not a public figure, random 15 seconds notwithstanding, WP is not an indiscrimiate collector of Internet trivia. ANONYMOUS WIKIPEDIAN PARROT 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. If she ever actually does achieve significant notability, put her in under her real name, not something weird like "Everywhere Girl." This isn't even a meme. Though the more we discuss this, the more likely she is to become one, courtesy of the internet being weird and illogical.

Also, I'd like to point out that User:Dionyseus is now equally notable to the Everywhere Girl! He was mentioned in the same online periodical, after all. Shall we give him an article?--tjstrf 23:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Weird and illogical". I like the way you spell "shite". You say tomayto? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Flawless logic tjstrf. Following your logic I will also be putting Bill Clinton up for deletion as he has equal notability as Everywhere Girl because he was also mentioned by The Inquirer here. Suoerh2 02:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Logic is a very sharp analytical tool, so I advise you to put it down now before you hurt yourself and others. --Calton | Talk 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm-> Very funny and most notable, how come there is no entry about you on wikipedia? You are threading the very history here with your brilliant words and sharp analytical mind <-Sarcasm. Your mind is so amazingly clear Calton, that you should really be afraid of it because only the shallowest water is so clear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.200.209.71 (talk • contribs) .

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH. OH CRAP THAT WAS FUNNY. You're awesome Calton! Keep it up! Suoerh2 03:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see the demographic groupings that the Inquirer draws upon. I'll remember that, if I ever need to advertise whoopie cushions or other goods for the socially challenged. --Calton | Talk 17:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I love how you choose to insult your "opponent" rather than make actual cogent arguments, it goes to show that you are impartial and any salient points you do make have all the more punch after you insult someone. Suoerh2 21:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I love how you choose to insult your "opponent" rather than make actual cogent arguments, You first, Mr. Descartes. --Calton | Talk 23:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Suoerh2, please, calm thyself. And no, you can't propose Bill Clinton for deletion, as that would be a violation of the guideline no disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Further, you know as well as I do that Clinton was actually mentioned by other notable sources as well. Nowhere-but-The-Inquirer Girl was not. --tjstrf 06:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Properly deleted in process, good closing summary. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Note: a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or completely random vandal recreated the article at Jennifer Chandra -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse closure, AfD properly closed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is something I created for our lynch mob because I believe they deserve a separate page on the Internet, and who am I to deny them their 15 minutes of fame? As one of them said "please assume good faith". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.200.209.71 (talk • contribs)

Yay! I'm famous! Almost as famous as nowhere-but-The-Inquirer Girl! Also, could you at least alphabetize the list? --tjstrf 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Gee, I'm included too? Thanks, Igor, I'm touched you would think of me... Since it doesn't appear you have comments turned on, I'll just say that if you want to dig up personal information about me, it's not like I could stop you from doing so if that is your desire. I suspect you will be sorely disappointed though. I'm not so interesting a person that my personal info would be very exciting.--Isotope23 17:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, not a b-b-b-blog! The tidal wave of frowns directed at us will no doubt prove debilitating. It's clear: the vox humana wants that online newspaper's advertising in Wikipedia! Or, um, maybe not. Geogre 02:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And here's my rant on this rant. Written in January. Aren't I prophetic? (In case you fail to get the drift: Did you ever consider the possibility that the original deletion was justified?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per all the other parrots ~ trialsanderrors 09:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just one thing to say: Wikipedia is not what it used to be. - Tibor

• Yes, it's more like an encyclopedia than it used to be. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Valid AfD, Endorse Closure - And to mirror what others have said, it is by far one of the most well reasoned, beautifully explained AfD closures I have ever read, from one of our best admins. While the Inquirer and its fans may rail against this action as an example of what is supposedly wrong with the Project, it is quite evident that this AfD is highly representative of what is right with the Project. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restore The recorded event whereby a collection of stock photographs taken of the same female wearing the same clothes was added to a photographic library was reused over and over, often the same image was simply cropped for use in a huge number of adverts shamlessly putting words into the subject's mouth promoting their own products and/or services. It is a huge example of Irony, the media, and an insight into advertising. Is this wikipedia? the open free online encyclopedia of today, or an abrdiged and censored '92 britanica? There is nothing inaaporopriate with "the everywhere girl" it is not a simple amusing event in internet history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenquo (talk • contribs)
  • Comment this isn't another AfD. The Deletion Review is for commenting on why the deletion was done improperly, or why the reasons no longer stand. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Can't see what really is wrong with the AfD. We cried for proof of notability of the "meme", it didn't really materialise. People who are crying foul are advised to reword the thing as a trivia bullet point in Stock photography article or whatever, because frankly, that's how much solid, verifiable information you can get out of this mess. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. – Gurch 22:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikiparrots Just wanted to point out the current inquirer website, as of time of writing http://www.theinquirer.net has a large sidebar picture of a parrot. If you hover your mouse cursor over it, the message reads "Wikiparrots are really geniuses". The sidebar links to a news article on parrot research suggesting they are more intelligent than previously theorized. Trivial, I know, but I'm taking this as a grudging compliment to Wikipedia and credit the Inquirer with a sense of humour about their "outrage" Bwithh 02:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted and let random nobodies run off at the mouth. Danny Lilithborne 04:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure Aaron deserves a lot of praise for this (tough-looking) closure, and I see nothing wrong with it apart from some angry bloggers. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Given the significant discussion present here, it would be appropriate to unblank the AfD discussion page while this topic is under 'undeletion review'. A claim to notability appears possible, her story is at the least fascinating even if not encyclopedic. Kershner 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted valid AfD. Not much more to say about it really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Talifan

I spotted that New guy had created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talifan to raise a question/objection over the speedy deletion of this article. I have told him to come here as the appropriate venue to discuss it. No vote from me. David | Talk 09:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Given how there was no debate nor consensus for deletion, is the deletion of this page a legitimate action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by New guy (talk • contribs)

Related links:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-01 Talifan

Google cache of article

Article was supposed to be transwikied to Wiktionary, per the cabal, but I don't find it there. -- Fan-1967 14:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's my main concern. It wasn't ported over but deleted entirely. New guy 18:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikitionary as per mediation cabal. Dionyseus 23:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary if they will take it, list on AFD if they will not. When deleting it, Jaranda said [3] "in wiktionary". The Wiktionary deletion log has no record of it being deleted there [4]. So I would suggest asking Jaranda for clarification. BigDT 23:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wikitionary has no record of any article by this name being transwikied (wikt:Transwiki#T). --ais523 16:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Club Penguin

I think it is notable enough for a page. If Runscape has a page, so should CP, since it has more users. --Jordan 05:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• A legitimate and unanimous AfD vote, and seven subsequent deletions of re-posts. This article is the reason why we created {{deletedpage}}. Keep deleted. Harro5 08:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: Argument by analogy is a fallacy, and we review the process, not the content. Geogre 11:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, constant re-creations justify the salting, too. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per above. Dionyseus 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per all above and Afd. If Runscape has a page, Runscape has a page. This is not relevant. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted, proper AfD closure, no new argument presented. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was in the page that was deleted, or whether it was written objectively or as an advertising blurb. I can say that the website is popular with my children and their friends. I would appreciate objective information on the website on wikipedia so that I can make up my mind whether it is worthwhile spending money on it. I have been able to use wikipedia to look at other similiar websites. I suggest that there is public benefit in having some information on it in wikipedia.--DaProthonotary 13:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly, this is this user's only edit to Wikipedia. I often wonder how new editors are able to find their way to DRV to make their first edits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment He either has insane luck, dogged persistence, or was linked here. It took me nearly two hours to figure out how to make a deletion nomination my first time. --tjstrf 09:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you go to Club Penguin it takes you right here. ~ trialsanderrors 09:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited Wikipedia for something like six months before discovering that AfD/DRV (then VfD/VfU) even existed. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was rather easy to find. You just type "Club Penguin" into the search box on the left and click go and there are links straight there. I have never felt the urge to edit before, so have not registered. I use wikipedia for what it was intended, a general knowledge research tool, which means I read it. Putting that aside, my argument still stands, the website still merits an entry, even if it reads "Club Penguin: Mostly harmless (or mostly useless, if that is your point of view)". --DaProthonotary 10:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)