Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JenniCam (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Again. DS 18:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JenniCam

I am nominating this page for the following reasons:

  • Original research Page has been tagged with the {{original research}} tag for several months with no citations for the information listed in the article. There are references listed, but whether or not they back up the information in the article is dubious.
  • Unencyclopedic Internet meme where the original website no longer exists. Claims that she initiated the webcam phenomenom are unsourced original speculation.
  • Meets upddated CSD A6: Attack pages. ...a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to. The information about the Dex saga is clearly negative in tone, unsourced, and no NPOV version exists.

-- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Note Previous AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JenniCam. Result was Speedy Keep, with no delete votes other than the nom. Fan1967 14:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Note CSD A6 has been upated since the original AfD. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Note It hasn't changed that much, and you left out half the definition: "Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject". Clearly that does not apply here. Fan1967 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - this is a very famous topic. I'd be amazed if Wikipedia did not have an article on it. Metamagician3000 14:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with nominator that the cleanup tag should be kept up, and citation requests fulfilled. The BBC reference alone means that this article should be kept, never mind the reams of academic doscourse cited. Request nominator to take on the job of adding citations, and to withdraw this AfD. Ultra-strong Keep, verging on speedy. Vizjim 14:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the previous discussion. She may not have been the first, but she was the first notable "cam girl". She was covered by the BBC, The Nation, and was a guest on Letterman. She played a fictionalized version of herself in an episode of Diagnosis:Murder. [1] - what more notability do you need? Excise the POV, complete the citations, don't delete. — AKADriver ☎ 14:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - This subject is one of the most highly notable figures in Internet history, and I'm rather surprised that this has been renominated yet again -- if, for instance, a section of the article is considered A6 fodder, what is preventing editors from deleting it rather than sending yet another AfD? Be bold, for pity's sake. Besides which, following Fan1967's comment, A6 doesn't mean "we can't ever say anything negative about the subject." Following that logic, we'd need to find ways to avoid saying naughty things about the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Genghis Khan and David Berkowitz. RGTraynor 14:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment The new contents of A6 apply to living persons and contains the provision that negative material be sourced. They are separate from the definition of attack pages. It would be difficult to excise the Dex material because it is a major reason for the demise of the cam. But unfortnately it's impossible to source the details listed in the article. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the unsourced gossip and minor details of her life, so there's no "attack" left on the article. See how easy that was? :) Someone is welcome to add it back if they can find sources. — AKADriver ☎ 15:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep and Comment Spewing fact templates is not a good response to an AfD. Dominick (TALK) 15:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment We may have had a problem, I thought that was blanking AKADriver, sorry. LEts look at the Cruft closer. Dominick (TALK) 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I reverted to my rewrite and also removed the {{fact}} templates, since the remaining stuff {{fact}}-ed is all verifiable if you take the time to skim the sources at the bottom of the article. — AKADriver ☎ 15:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I would delete pretty much all internet cams, but this one is notable. If the content is unsalvageable because it cannot be verified, I suggest deleting it and replacing it with a stub. Skimming the article, it does not seem to be an attack page, though it has negative information. -- Kjkolb 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep just about the only such site for which I would vote keep. Just zis Guy you know? 15:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Psychotically famous webcam / site / case study. If this doesn't have an article, I can't imagine Facebook or IGN having their own articles. -- Kicking222 15:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Duh. -- GWO
  • Keep. All has been said above. --Tone 16:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Possible the only notable webcam but this one is very notable Ydam 17:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reasons listed by Malber all point to the article needing work not deletion. AlistairMcMillan 17:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.