Talk:Donna Simpson (internet celebrity)

CSD dispute
This is not an attack page. Donna Simpson and her desire to become the world's heaviest woman have been well-documented in many sources, and it's something she's proud of. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also: User: Anowlin posted a level 4im vandalism warning on my talk page, falsely accusing me of "vandalism". That could in itself be considered a personal attack; at the very least, it was a bad mistake, as this page was in no way vandalism. So I removed the vandalism warning template; please do not repost it. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if not an attack page, should still qualify under A7. --ANowlin: talk 17:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, if you look at the categories selected, "fat fetishism" just reinforces my original decision to mark this as an attack page. Regardless, the page either qualifies for CSD as marked, or under A7. --ANowlin: talk 17:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources mention that Donna Simpson makes money off guys who pay to watch videos of her eating and measuring her waistline. Thus the category was only added because of the sources.Stonemason89 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the Norma Stitz and Chelsea Charms articles include "Breast Fetishism" as a category; no "attack" or derogatory statement implied. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * She's definitely notable. I was listening to KSTP-FM the other day and the radio DJ's were interviewing her; she's been doing a national radio tour. So A7 won't work either. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We'll leave this for an admin. I don't see how someone who is fat and only wants to be fatter qualifies for inclusion. --ANowlin: talk 17:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, she's received quite a bit of coverage in many sources, so I don't see how she could not be considered notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, this is for an administrator to decide. If they rule its not CSDable, then all they have to do is click "undo" where I added the CSD tag.  What I saw, and my initial reaction was: "attack" page, based on the title and contents.  If it weren't for the "(Obese)" in the title, I probably never would have pulled it up.  The category which was added could be considered rude.  While I do see your justification of her "notability," I don't think it meets Wikipedia's definition of "notability." --ANowlin: talk 17:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason for the "obese" in the title was because it's why she's famous; also, the Donna Simpson page already exists and is about an Australian musician. I racked my brains and honestly couldn't think of any better title. If you can think of a better title, why not move the article there instead of slapping a CSD on it and then falsely accusing me of vandalism, adding unjustified 4im template, etc? Stonemason89 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that not EVERY "notable" person should be on Wikipedia. How are you NOT contributing to the obesity epidemic by allowing this person to be someone worthy of note on Wikipedia? This is just ridiculous. Just because someone is in the news, they are now notable? I don't care how many sources you have, this person is only notable for an eating disorder, and offers nothing positive to any community except fetishists, and I fail to understand how fetishes have come to be standard fare for choosing who in the world is notable anymore. If that is the standard, then all the people who work in real jobs, who have real accomplishments, but who are lesser known, who have asked me for assistance getting Wikipedia entries, and to whom I have said, "No, I'm sorry, but you are not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia entry," have just as much a right to be here. Her presence here just makes Wikipedia a bigger joke than it already is. Kelelain (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest that you read WP:BIO and WP:RS. If you still think the article should be deleted, please initiate an Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved, per consensus and WP:BOLD. ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Donna Simpson (obese) → Donna Simpson (American) Donna Simpson (internet personality) — Or a better alternative, if this article is notable. I don't think "obese" in parenthesis is a good disambiguator, even if she is notable for her weight, and it arguably violates WP:BLP. Note there is only one other Donna Simpson on Wikipedia. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Support, possible alternative: Donna Simpson (internet personality). – ukexpat (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer that suggestion to the one I suggested; amending the move request to that. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I created this article and, as I explained above, I only gave it the title it currently has because I couldn't think of any better ones at the time. I think Ukexpat's suggestion is the best one offered so far, so I support Ukexpat's suggestion of Donna Simpson (internet personality). Stonemason89 (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Support as above. She's noted for her subscription website and makes her living from that, so it makes sense. I wonder if the article's current usage of stones and pounds is correct (she's from New Jersey) but that's a separate topic. --an odd name 02:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The only reason for the stones is because one of the sources used stones. If you want, you can convert it to just using pounds. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like that has been done. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. What's the problem? Just be bold and do it! Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vandals
An anonymous user added some snarky comments to the article such as "The procedure lasted three days due to difficulty finding the womb" and "...the hornier I get", etc. These comments went uncaught for quite a while, but now I've removed them (I had to do so manually due to the large number of intermediate edits). Stonemason89 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

DYKSTATS
This article received 6,200 views while on the Main Page, thus making it eligible for DYKSTATS. See. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Importance
Why is this on wikipedia? It's pretty much an advertisement, it has utterly no importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.77.26 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Website
"In March 2011 she launched a website[14]... As of 2008, she had 260 subscribers"

My powers of deduction tell me one of these is wrong. Can't see a launch date on her website though. BulbaThor (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your powers of deduction are right. I fixed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Current position
Donna Simpson would appear to have changed her stance since most of the references in this article. Can we get her new position on each from the blog on her website? --gmip 58.106.67.247 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete
I think this page is not needed. 174.22.202.223 (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sarah Austin (Internet personality) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This is probably an original research issue, but hear me out
Is there any way we can calculate the amount of food she needlessly consumes and quantify it another way? For example, could someone calculate it and demonstrate that the amount of food, which she didn't need that week, could've provided 30 underpriviledged kids with their 21 meals for that particular week? It's probably an original research thing yes, but if this woman of all people is notable, then surely the gluttony in which she engages every waking moment of her disgusting life should be quantified: not just to say how much food she ate, but how many people that food COULD HAVE fed.Hommedepommes (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Donna Simpson (internet celebrity). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100322221534/http://wcbstv.com:80/topstories/donna.simpson.1000.2.1570361.html to http://wcbstv.com/topstories/donna.simpson.1000.2.1570361.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Donna Simpson which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)