Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Blain


 * 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 was   delete. Policy based consensus is rather clear as the sources provided was easily rebuked for failing our guidelines. Secret account 04:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Amanda Blain

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources are either not RS, minimal or related to the website, with a slice of press release &/or promotion. Reads unacceptably advertorial and isn't ready for mainspace until the sourcing dramatically improves. Was rejected at AFC but moved to mainspace by author anyway. Recommend usification if deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 04:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Keep" Hi folks, I wrote this article and am brand new around here. I've spent a fair amount of time learning things around wikipedia, including proper markup, have gone through helping to clean up backlogged AFC (about 40 articles so far), updated various other minor pages and categories and created another article that is being discussed. I am really trying to understand how to help out and add new articles around here. This process is pretty frustrating. That being said..


 * According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEOPLE - A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject. As well as Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.(2.5 million+) As well as some - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications.


 * Analysis of the 15 sources in the article:


 * Published Major Secondary Sources -

  Tuhuh-Dubrow, Rebecca (13 July 2012). "Women Can Connect, Click by Click". The New York Times.  Levine, Irene (3 February 2010). "New Girl on the Block: Amanda Blain New opportunities for women to forge real friendships online". Psychology Today.  Lowen, Linda. "Make New Friends - Online Friendship Sites Help Women Make New Friends". About.com.  Levine, Irene (2011), "Female Friends - Go Online To Connect", Women's World (May 23rd): 22  Levine, Irene. "New Girl on the Block? Use the Internet to Find Friends". Huffington Post. Burbach, Cherie (2012). "Favorite Website for Meeting New Friends for 2012". About.com.


 * Industry publications related to the person but independent of the subject -

 a b c Boitnott, John (25 Feb 2013). "One of G+’s Biggest Influencers Explains Why You Can’t Ignore It Anymore". ViralHeat. <li> Google's Suggested User List, [1], Retrieved on August 20, 2012</li> <li> NMX Speaker Page, April 1, 2013</li> <li> "Winners of the 2012 Spirit of Google+ Awards". Media Tapper. June 28, 2012.</li> <li> Shervington, Martin (2012). The Art & Science of Google+.</li> <li> "Guy Kawasaki and 10 Experts Chime in on the Value of Google Plus – and How You Can Start to Leverage It". Windmill Networking. Oct 1, 2012.</li>


 * Independent publications - only to verify statements -

<li> Google Social Statistics, [2] 2012</li> <li> Amanda Blain on Google+</li> <li> Circle Count, August 20, 2012</li> </ol>
 * Since I spent some time reviewing other articles in the AFC, I didn't think there would be an issue in moving this ahead, but seems like its being used as a reason above and that I did something incorrect. I reviewed other articles that had been approved and I felt the above references shows at least the ability for a C-level article with help from some more experienced authors about "advertorial" and the style. Geek4gurl (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

<ol> <li> Tuhuh-Dubrow, Rebecca (13 July 2012). "Women Can Connect, Click by Click". The New York Times. - ''Mentions the site and has a quote from Blain but says nothing about her as a person - just a quote from her. This isn't going to count for Blain's notability as it doesn't contain any biography detail. </li> <li> Levine, Irene (3 February 2010). "New Girl on the Block: Amanda Blain New opportunities for women to forge real friendships online". Psychology Today. '' Its about the site and doesn't add very much about Blain, Its too marginal to count as a reliable source for notability. Plus its identical to the Huffington Post article which makes me wonder if its a promotional puff piece or a recycles press release. Being quoted doesn't make you notable'' </li> <li> Lowen, Linda. "Make New Friends - Online Friendship Sites Help Women Make New Friends". About.com.  About.com isn't a reliable source</li> <li> Levine, Irene (2011), "Female Friends - Go Online To Connect", Women's World (May 23rd): 22 - '' Can't comment on this as its not on-line but the title doesn't suggest its primarily about Blain or that it has much bio. ''</li> <li> Levine, Irene. "New Girl on the Block? Use the Internet to Find Friends". Huffington Post.  Same problems as the psychology today article as its identical </li> <li>Burbach, Cherie (2012). "Favorite Website for Meeting New Friends for 2012". About.com.  About.com isn't a reliable source </li></ol>
 * Delete The only actually reliable non-press released based source is the NYT article, and it is not devoted to her, but mentions her site as only one of several examples.  DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lets look at these sources in more detail:
 * Spartaz Humbug! 07:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am very confused why this article is being judged so tough. It does seem to be penalized for submitting to AFC first, as many other articles get approved with no question with way worse sources than i've submitted here (not that that is ok) but not sure why there is little help on this and lots of simply "its wrong and pull it" Many wiki entries for people in the social media industry/internet personalities are left with "could use more sources", "additional clean up" or even stub articles. It is very discouraging to a new user to have hours of work immediately removed and deleted and certainly makes me not want to help out if everything just gets shot down because senior editors happened across it in the AFC. I've spent a lot of time to try and do things correctly.


 * As I posted above the notability guidelines I went off of - The user has a large fan base and cult following of over 2.5 million people and being 35th most followed person on the second largest social network in the world. The bottom two sections of sources listed above show she is considered an expert on Google Plus by her peers including interviews, stats, and speaking engagements. Blain also designed a popular website that had an ok amount of press and following.


 * I disagree with above analysis and at least i'm finally getting some real answers here after asking several times (including teahouse, irc chat, Spartaz directly for help, etc) and getting no real response. All of these articles are not 100% about Blain, but I sourced them to back the facts about Girlfriend Social, that she created instead of creating a separate page which seemed to be the standard for website creators.

<ol> <li> Tuhuh-Dubrow, Rebecca (13 July 2012). "Women Can Connect, Click by Click". The New York Times. - ''This is used to verify that Amanda is the founder of the website which it does with this line. " Amanda Blain, the founder of Girlfriend Social"''</li> <li> Levine, Irene (3 February 2010). "New Girl on the Block: Amanda Blain New opportunities for women to forge real friendships online". Psychology Today. - '' It talks about her background, location, age, moving to place, technology background and more. It is about her company including launch date, and purpose - which is what this section is referencing. How would any article about a website/founder not be somewhat promotional? I am very confused.'' </li> <li>Lowen, Linda. "Make New Friends - Online Friendship Sites Help Women Make New Friends". About.com. -'' Im not sure how this doesn't count "at all". Its owned by InterActiveCorp, an independant major secondary source to me... but more importantly it is a direct interview with Amanda that includes some background and states she designed and is responsible for the website''</li> <li> Levine, Irene (2011), "Female Friends - Go Online To Connect", Women's World (May 23rd): 22 - '' This is in reference to the number of users on the website which is mention and discussed in the women's world article. It also includes background information on Amanda.''</li> <li>Levine, Irene. "New Girl on the Block? Use the Internet to Find Friends". Huffington Post. -'' It is a duplicate article, but the different publication should not discount its inclusions since it is a completely different publication that had to approve it - don't most news articles get syndicated in some degree? I included it as an additional sources I found.''</li> <li>Burbach, Cherie (2012). "Favorite Website for Meeting New Friends for 2012". About.com. '' In terms of the female friendship industry, winning this user voted on award seems like an achievement. Not sure again why it doesn't count.'' </li> </ol>


 * Are the sources not supposed to back up the specific points? Thats how I used them.


 * The remaining articles not gone through above, include large/medium social media websites that did peer direct interviews and being used as an expert source. It might not be the New York Times, but it isn't her personal blog site either. I still feel they count as independent third party sources in the industry. I'm not sure how they 'count for nothing' and are considered 'press releases'.
 * Including :

<ol> <li> a b c Boitnott, John (25 Feb 2013). "One of G+’s Biggest Influencers Explains Why You Can’t Ignore It Anymore". ViralHeat. a direct interview where she talks about google plus and her experiences specifically, as well as being called one of its biggest influencers</li> <li> "Guy Kawasaki and 10 Experts Chime in on the Value of Google Plus – and How You Can Start to Leverage It". Windmill Networking. Oct 1, 2012.  Interviewed with other major social media players as an expert on Google Plus</li> <li> NMX Speaker Page, April 1, 2013 -  According to the speaker page, spoke as the expert about Google Plus at a very large social media conference</li> </ol>
 * Geek4gurl (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Lack of evidence of persistent notability based on substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Sources are heavily dependent on subject's own press releases and lack independence. No evidence that the subject has garnered any lasting notability. Heavily promotional in tone, reads like an advertisment, and full of puffery. Rewriting won't solve anything. Nothing in the article is of encyclopedic value. Arguement for keep boils down to WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, none of which does much to establish notability, even if taken together. There's a good reason why this article was rejected at AFC. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm learning as I go here. The reasons for my Keep: I felt these best described an Internet Personality celebrity - <ul> <li>WP:ENT - Cult following of 2.5 million - Average blog post or G+ posts gets several thousand interactions</li> <li>WP:CREATIVE - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors and The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications. I provided examples of how I thought this was done above. </li> </ul>
 * Geek4gurl (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above ahem somewhat verbose discussion. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's kinda of a WP:METOO and I'd be interested in your thoughts on what sources provive the detailed independant coverage of Blain's life/works that meets GNG/BIO? Spartaz Humbug! 05:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On The Fence (since I'm also new around here...and not yet as far along as you, Geek4gurl :-) The article reads well; but on the other hand, I can see how stringent standards for notability keep Wikipedia out of an Internet cycle of self-promotion by not-so-notables. What about the test of time? If it does in fact get deleted, hang onto the source text that you've written/edited, and retry later, if she goes on to become noteworthy.  Siryendor (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:BASIC. Zoke (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's rather an assertion without evidence. Please can you explain which sources you think pass the GNG and WP:BIO. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 05:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of significant coverage of this person as a real person (the sort of coverage that includes genuine biographical details) in independent, reliable sources. The writer of the article is new to Wikipedia, and is earnest and enthusiastic, and I hate to hurt her feelings. But this is an actual encyclopedia and we carry articles about truly notable people, as Wikipedia defines "notability" quite clearly. Notability does not come from a single passing mention in the New York Times, or from blog posts, or from fleeting popularity on social networks.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I was pondering a keep based on the HuffPo and PsychologyToday sources, until i realized that it was the same exact article written by the same person. So that is considered one source, but the rest just feels very superficial and of the mention-in-passing variety.  The sourcing may be solid enough, but just barely, to support an article on Girlfriend Social and have Ms. Blain's article redirect to that. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fortunately we don't base importance on the number of followers on social networking sites. We have some reliable proof Blaim founded a website, but nothing of substance that talks about her in any depth. Sionk (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thanks for your comments. Its helpful. This entire section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_Internet_personalities and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_personalities should all be removed (except a few) if the above stands true. There are more secondary sources and third party interviews for Blain than most of the ones in that section. Perhaps this is why I am so confused.

If "social networking sites" do not count for notability then - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_Stars ? Youtube is a social network just as much as GooglePlus and in fact it is smaller.Geek4gurl (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring this up as an argument to keep my article. I feel i've talked about that above a great deal how there is enough in here for at least a starting article. I brought this up so some of you serious editors could have a look at that section and clean it up just like you are doing here. Its full of very poorly sourced articles and persons and that seems to be very important to many of you. Geek4gurl (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We are here to discuss and evaluate one article now and that is Amanda Blain. A "starting article" requires that the subject is notable, and there is general consensus here that passing mentions and blog posts are insufficient to establish notability. If someone nominates those other articles for deletion, then they too will be evaluated on their individual merits. As for YouTube, the fact is that some YouTube "stars" have attained notability, but by no means all.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  17:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. But regardless of me following proper channels, (asking directly for help to previous editors, using the teahouse multiple times, using the IRC chat) this is the only time i've actually been able to have a real substance conversation with multiple editors. I've learned more in this discussion (formating styles, deletion process, and referencing various points) than hours of trying to follow proper formats. Sorry it's gone off course, but thanks to all who are helping someone new learn your very difficult processes. Geek4gurl (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The best way of figuring out how WP works is to read up very thoroughly on the policies and guidelines, and then to observe how they are applied by experienced users. The best places to do this are article talk pages, notice boards and AfD's. Before I started editing, I spent about a year lurking on talk pages, following a few highly experienced editors around and seeing how they interpreted policy. Yes, it does take time to learn the ropes, and it can be very confusing until all of the different policies and guidelines gel into a coherent whole in your brain. Good luck, and happy editing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * TLDR. the failure to explain notability in a succinct way is a system problem, not a new editor problem. i see one good reference, but regrettably not enough, yet. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge ⇔ †@1₭ 11:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Not even close to enough in depth coverage in reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy or send back to AfC at the page creators request. Technical 13 (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good amount of secondary source coverage of the topic. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Keri (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep while the coverage is indepedent sources is not overwhelming, it is more than trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2013 (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.