Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StephTheGeek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] StephTheGeek

Tagged for speedy deletion as "Vanity, wiki spam.", but it makes some claims to notability, so I brought it here. No vote. Kappa 07:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • StephtheGeek's website has an Alexa ranking of 316, 981. Page is either deilberate vanity or promotion of the site by a fan, delete--nixie 08:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Shameless promotion delete--AntiMatterVortex 08:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Edit I firmly agree w/ ANTIMATTERVORTEX, and she has a following which is important. kb6110
    • Keep and EDIT After reading the comments below I'm changing my vote. However this article needs to become less promotional and more informational immediately. Mentioning the web site one time at the bottom of the page should suffice. --AntiMatterVortex 03:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm very pleased to see the way this article has developed since it was posted here. I would sincerely like to see this article continue to expand and I hope that everyone that hasn't re-evaluated it would go and take a look. --AntiMatterVortex 08:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promotion. jni 10:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Article was written by a fan (me), not by Steph herself. You have pages for other internet personalities, such as Drew Curtis, why wouldn't this be allowed too?
    • This vote is the only edit by User:63.240.225.182
  • Instead of deleting, why not move it into the appropriate category of Internet Personalities? Spazholio
  • An article doesn't have to be self-written to be considered vanity, and we have pages and categories for notable internet personalities, but not just everyone (otherwise, any Wikipedian could be considered an internet personality). Sorry but this does get my delete vote. Radiant_* 13:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • I do see your point, and to a certain extent, agree with it. However, how many Wikipedians have 40,000 unique page views per month and have released their own album. I understand you have to separate the wheat from the chaff here, and not every bonehead with a website can be included, but for someone who has that many pageviews and actually recorded her own CD, one would think that would take her out of the realm of "some person with a page" to "internet personality", no? Spazholio
    • Not really. Pageviews alone are a weak indicator of notability, and besides that 40K a month isn't really that high. My website had 50,484 hits last month according to WebTrends, and I certainly don't consider myself either an internet personality or worthy of an article. Having recorded a CD is nice, but as far as I can tell it seems to be self-released. Anyone with a CDR drive, some freeware, and a $3 PC microphone could technically record their own CD in a couple of hours if they really wanted to. Radiant said it best, there has to be some sort of notability before an article on an "internet personality" can be seriously considered. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment "actually recorded [her/his/their] own [CD, LP, album, EP, single]" has been non-notable for about 20 years now. Trust me on this.  ;-) Soundguy99 16:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity, not notable. Subject's website has a current Alexa rank of 316,981 which is pretty low for someone whose claim to notability is internet-related. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for all the good reasons listed above. CDC (talk) 16:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity, non-notable page. --InShaneee 16:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sticking with my speedy delete vote as complete and total spam. The sockpuppets aren't helping. - Lucky 6.9 17:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I guess I am the only one here that has actually been to StephTheGeek's website. [1] shows 33,200 pages mentioning the one and only StephTheGeek. This isn't vanity. She isn't as big of a web-celebrity as Wonkette or Drew Curtis, but she does have a following, probably larger than Sollog's. MicahMN | Talk 17:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I only get 4,790 hits from that google search (clicking that same link). Kappa 19:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Then you're doing something wrong. I get 33,000 hits as well.
        • Hmm safe search is off, not sure what else it could be. Kappa 20:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep She is just as important as many of the other so called "stars" on the Web. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, so those other so-called "stars" should also be deleted. Only the real Stars should stay. Radiant_* 09:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the low alexa rank makes me think that she is not as important as many of the other so called "stars" on the Web. Dave the Red (talk) 19:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. --Chiacomo 20:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I get about 20,000 searching for StephTheGeek OR "Steph The Geek". -- 8^D gab 21:18, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
  • Good enough for me. Changing vote to keep. - Lucky 6.9 22:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I get 311 hits at the link MicahMN referenced. Note that the 33,200 count is for every reference on every page in the Google search. There are only 311 unique hits. RickK 00:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - since I hadn't explicitly stated it earlier Spazholio 14:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just saw this in my stats. I didn't submit it myself, and the text of the entry is taken from my bio -- maybe it could be edited a bit to be less self-promo-sounding. While I'd like to stay here, this obviously isn't my encyclopedia; it's yours. So I'll leave you to your voting after I make a few comments. I'd like to correct that the 40k reference above is unique monthly visitors, not page views, which is roughly half a million. I was actually down in Cleveland this weekend, giving a presentation on my site at the NotACon conference. I've been living my life online for nearly five years, and have been on TechTV and in many other publications, and I am to be in an upcoming documentary (look for horrible, horrible photo in this month's American Cinematographer) and book on the webcam phenomenon. Yes, my album is self-released, but believe me, not with a CD burner! I've actually even been recognized on the street a good few times. So anyway... I'll leave you to your voting. I enjoy a healthy debate  :) Stephthegeek 14:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • this obviously isn't my encyclopedia; it's yours I respectuflly disagree. It is OUR encyclopedia, not simply the private property of a few cabals. I agree the page needs to sound a bit less self-serving. I attempted some updates to correct this, but the article does need work. An article needing work should not instantly qualify as a deletion candidate in my book, though. --Froggy 17:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep' this as well please Yuckfoo 16:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP and expand. Entry itself needs work, but should not be summarily deleted. Notability is documented. My suspicion is that more will be heard of her in the coming months and years. --Froggy 16:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and expand; I think presence in documentaries, books, and American Cinematographer lift this above a vanity entry. Masked Angel 17:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep although she may have started this herself (emphasis on MAY) she is notable and has been for a while.  ALKIVAR™ 18:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. If being featured in an upcoming documentary film, TechTV, CosmoGirl, and a number of other television shows and trade magazines doesn't clear the bar of notability, we've got a lot more de1337ing to do.  ;) —RaD Man (talk) 01:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The article has grown nicely since being listed here. Steph, your notability is not only well-documented, it's now well-written. Please consider establishing an account and being a regular contributor. Given the condition of the original article and the number of similar ones that flood this site every day, it's all too easy to overlook a diamond in the rough. - Lucky 6.9 06:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme delete Vanity Ejrrjs | What? 22:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; sufficient notability is now shown. Samaritan 12:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Spinboy 16:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- article shows notability. Multiple credits in multiple publications. Far more deserving of an article than much of what's in Wikipedia and regularly voted Keep on. DreamGuy 05:10, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.