Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Belmont

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. I ignored only those puppets who seemed to be talking crap, none of the rest. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veronica Belmont

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Please remember to sign your posts by adding ~~~~ (four tildes) to the end of your comments. It is very difficult for administrators to determine what consensus, if any, is reached during this discussion.

This is essentially a vanity page, read the wikipedia entry on Vanity PagesBolfan 02:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What makes this different from an entry for Leo Laporte, Tom Cruise or George Burns? Veronica is a bonafide podcasting celebrity and should be treated as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.153.6 (talk • contribs)

• Keep, I don't see Vanity here. By my count over 10 editors have worked on this page. She seems notable, weakly perhaps, as a journalist. Mangojuice^talk 02:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who says Veronica isn't "famous" hasn't listened to the umteenth male-caller to the BOL Podcast ask her to marry him. The page should remain as an alternative source of information to those guys, otherwise they will overload her personal website with traffic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.130.28 (talk • contribs)

From the Wiki on Vanity pages: "Does lack of fame make a vanity article?

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see Template:IncGuide). Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject; indeed, it can also be vanity if written by a fan, or close relationship. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses can be "vanity" depending on the amount of recognition - e.g. a homemade movie or game, a self-published book, or a fanfic story is not generally considered encyclopedic. In general, the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional.

The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.156.108 (talk • contribs)

Maybe delete quotes from personal webpage, but the Buzz Out Loud Podcast is a popular one for tech fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adkinsjm (talk • contribs)

• Seems to me that while Veronica Belmont probably merits inclusion in Wikipedia - after all, Buzz Out Loud is a popular podcast and its presenters accordingly well regarded - the article itself isn't strong. It's disjointed and interspersed with rather trite comments. It just needs more depth, more detail, and fewer flippant observations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.135.98 (talk • contribs)

• I think that this article going up for deletion has increased its value greatly. It has been changed from a vanity article, but I stand by my opinion that the previous iteration was much more like a vanity page. I think that we should now remove its deletion tag. If there are any objections to that discuss below, and if not I will remove the tag after 02:00 UTC. P.S. I'm a 4 month BOL fan myself and was just trying to adhere to what in my opinion was wikipedia policy. --Bolfan 13:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand you wanted to adhere to wiki policy, but the deletion page is supposed to be used for articles that obviously have generated very little or no interest from the community as a whole. This is especially true if the article is very short and contains unverifiable data. What I disagree with what you had done is that instead of going in and changing the article itself to make it less vanity and more content, you simply opted to have it deleted. That isn't very responsible in my opinion. It took me less than an hour total to revise the page to a hopefully better version. Next time please, be careful with how you use some of these special wiki tags. They are not usually reversable once issued. --LifeStar 19:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• KeepI'm glad he/she changed their mind. I agree that it was not a very good wikipedia entry before, but now it seems to have been improved a lot. Thanks a lot to BOL Listener who made this page a lot better --Alexbrewer

• Don't Delete! People are adding to this article everyday to keep it from being deleted. I see no vanity, give it a chance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.66.175 (talk • contribs)

• Keep - This deletion request was made by an anomIP user and has also tagged another article for a copyright infringment while there is nothing that has been violated. User IP on Wiki has a long history of random edits and even a wiki-violation logged on its talk page. This deletion request should not be considered seriously and should be removed ASAP.--LifeStar 16:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this article - It is continually getting more depth as Veronica steadily expands her impact on the podcasting and web media universe. She may not be as well known as Leo or John C. now but that does not mean she won't be. As a member of the Cnet team she gets worldwide exposure on a fairly large scale. She is an up and coming net celebrity and is of interest to enough netizens to warrant an entry on wikipedia. --68.126.216.232 16:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - its content has been notably improved and now reads just fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.63.169 (talk • contribs)

• KeepVeronica is a key contributor to the Buzz Out Loud Podcast, which has become a key source of tech news for it's growing number of listeners. She may not be a celebrity yet, but she is approaching that level more and more every day. --michaelkpate

• Keep Fame should not constitute keeping an entry or an entry being classified as vanity. Veronica is an important figure in the podcasting world, as the producer and commenter on a very popular technology podcast. Ethan 20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Every page for an up and comer in entertainment, new or even podcasting could be considered a vanity page when first set up. There does not appear to be anything that is over the top self promotion, instead it currently focuses on her duties with the Buzz Out Loud podcast, and other contributions she has made in the podcasting community. --

• Keep Face it, she is famous. KeyStroke 06:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep keep keep -- she's hott and getting hottter User:OMGponiez 09:44, 19 May 2006 (BST)

• Keep she seems to meet the requirements for notability and I wouldn't call this a vanity page as has been pointed out above Ydam 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who (on her own) has enough influence to cause an afdnoobs tag to appear is -I hazard to guess- probably notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. Not that I'm advocating the "get 100s of fans to spam wikipedia" approach here, mind you. Kim Bruning 11:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep While I think 'famous' is a real strech here, and my sockpuppetry alarms are going off, I do think she meets the standards in WP:N. Also, please please please sign your posts, folks. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 18:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think Belmont is a legitimate public figure, and I think the article meets the Wikipedia standards and merits retention. DGaw 19:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, the person seems notable as a journalist. Yamaguchi先生 22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, asserts notability. --Terence Ong 04:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, flood of sockpuppets sets off all my alarms. Stifle (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  While I've said similar things in the throes of newbiehood, sockpuppetry alone is not a reason for deletion. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Yes, this is definitely vanity. A phrase like ".. increasingly popular ... podcast" makes me go hmm. Let's wait till it's really popular, shall we? I agree with Stifle, sock puppets in the house. Medico80 14:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Dr Zak 14:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep i see no vanity in this post. veronica belmont is a producer at one of the largest tech news companies in the U.S. , and is also one of the great names in podcasting. she may not be famous, but is definitely well known. there is no reason why she does not deserve to keep this wiki. indy1333

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.