Talk:Stephanie Pakrul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Stephanie Pakrul, has edited Wikipedia as Stephthegeek (talk · contribs)

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-04-11. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Deletion

While I'm not familiar with StephTheGeek, it appears she/it might be encyclopedic if the article were rewritten in a manner that's not obvious self-promotion. Might be a genuinely interesting article... --Chiacomo 04:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This is quite possible, as the article was taken from a blurb she had written for the purpose OF self-promotion. I think when they delete the article (because they will), I'll try to rewrite it so it's got more substance to it and less fluff. Thanks for the advice. 63.240.225.182 17:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree with any deletion suggestion. In the phenomenon of CamGirls, Steph The Geek is significant for a number of reasons. She is also an incredibly popular figure on the Internet who has often been called upon to consult and speak about Internet culture in general. This article is not an ad for her site. LACameraman 02:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] category

I wonder if we should put her under the nude models catagory, since she has nude photos of herself on her website.

[edit] NPOV dispute - "Pornography"

Ok. Here's to hoping I'm doing this POV dispute thing right.

The original line was (I believe): "She has also ventured off into the world of pornography, where she has added a special paysite feature on her website [1] where you can view pornographic pictures of her. pornographic pictures of her are also scattered on the internet."

The current form of the line is: "She has also ventured off into the world of pornography, where she has added a special paysite feature on her website where you can view pornographic pictures of her."

The line reads like a thinly veiled "OMG! This person has sold out and is selling nekkid peectures of themselves on the interwubs!" Worse yet, it has a faint implication (IMO) of porn in general being a 'bad thing'.

It also still implies a 'recentness' to it all. As if this is something she's doing NOW as opposed to earlier. As far as I know, the adult section of her site has always existed in one form or another for as long as Steph was legally of an age to do that sort of thing.

The mention of adult material could easily be rewritten and added into the first paragraph and/or immediately follow the first paragraph. Moving from a definition of Steph to a list of things she has been associated with back to a very focused mention of another aspect of who Steph is doesn't flow well.

Moleculor 03:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Great and Powerful administrator this article is an ad for a pay site. The content is not for an enclopedia. But since you are a fan of hers just delete any comments against her. As far as staying anon I do not need the grief from the fans that disagree. I guess this is an enyclopedia of nepotism and fear.

64.231.255.111 01:27, 2 April 2006

I've moved this recent comment out from under the 'deletion' discussion, since this article hasn't been under consideration for deletion for a while. It does tie into the NPOV debate, however, so I'm going to put it in here. I myself AGREE that this article should not be an ad for a paysite, which is another reason why I keep removing the comment about the porn that seems to harp on and focus on porn. Steph's 'paysite' is a single very tiny link amongst a gigantic amount of free material. The 'pay' portion of the site is nothing much, and it isn't the focus of Steph's site. Therefore it shouldn't be focused on in an article about HER. Especially since the article is supposed to be about HER, not her site.

Since we're not getting any other discussion on this NPOV debate, and the only comments in the past few weeks have agreed with the idea of removing the focus on the paysite/pornography portion of Steph's website, I'm going to remove the line, and hopefully figure out how to archive this 'discussion'.

Moleculor 04:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Steph herself has openly referred to SOME of her site as pornography. That is not a label that she is uncomfortable with. I do not believe the context used here is unfair or comes from a biased POV. It is merely fact, by the very definition of pornography - which are sexually implicit images used for sexual stimulation. Although much of Steph's work can fall under Burlesque just as easily as it can be considered Adult Entertainment, she is quite comfortable with the concept of pornography. However, as mentioned earlier, her adult work is a small portion of her site. LACameraman 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)