Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Stover

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (discounting ballot stuffing). Ingoolemo  talk  19:23, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Jessica Stover
Vanity actor site/purported AOL show got six google hits. Currently is studying acting. Paul Klenk 08:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, article does not allege notability. Zoe 08:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ^ Drdisque 08:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete SaltyPig 12:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The article most certainly does allege notability. Creator, producer and star of, what is essentially, a television show. It's just broadcast on AOL instead of a conventional network. She appears to have had numerous celebrity guests and filmed on location around the world. If her show were on a conventional network there would be no argument about keeping this article. Pburka 14:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm a little hestitant, because I can't verify the AOL "show" exists, since I'm not on AOL. Also, I reworded the whole article, since it was an exact copy from the web site, which says "All rights reserved".  If her website is not a complete hoax , it's a reasonable keep (both for her webcast and to a lessor extent as a blogebrity).  --rob 18:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not seeing notability here. The show is not on broadcast, cable, or satellite TV; it's apparently just something you can access on AOL, like a web site or blog, but it's video? I don't think AOL "content" automatically confers notability.  MCB 18:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Tenative delete; I couldn't find her on IMDb...if I knew more about this webcasted teen show on AOL I might change my mind. Everyking 19:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * delete. if we add this, we should also add all existing acting students in the whole world! __earth 04:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator --nixie 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The nominator's Google hit count of 6 is far less than the 33 uniques I got using her show's exact title (in quotes) or the 133 uniques I got with her first+last name in quotes.  I verified that even the 133rd unique hit was about *this* "Jessica Stover" (only a few were about another girl).  --rob 06:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * this google argument people toss around all day at wikipedia is ludicrous. nobody knows me, and i have 119 unique hits, 100% of which refer to me (unique name spelling). the article's atrocious, she's not a "blogebrity", and getting google hits is a piece of cake (just like "releasing an album", "hosting a TV show", "acting in a movie", "making a podcast" blah blah). SaltyPig 06:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The world is full of wannabe-stars and odious blog-celebs. Who'll miss just one. --Agamemnon2 07:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm hoping that's a typo and you meant "dubious".  It's ok to vfd an article because the notability and/or claims made in it are "dubious".  But, it's wrong to vfd an article, because you find a certain group of people to be "odious".  Many valid wiki articles are of odious people who have done odious things. --rob 07:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * i doubt "odious" is a typo, and i agree with Agamemnon2. it's not wrong to criticize a page for the subject's odiousness when that trait is not only directly related to a desire to have one's name plastered around (perhaps specifically at wikipedia), but likely forms the sole weak (yet disguised) excuse for inclusion &#8212; the subject (or friend, relative, fanatic) wants to have an article here. see fallacy of accident for more on why your example of generally odious people has no merit in this discussion. further, it's mistaken to presume that the terse comments after votes compose a full case. what's going on here is that wikipedia articles are used for original-research publicity (and google priming) rather than for encyclopedic knowledge distribution. that's not obvious to you in this example? SaltyPig 08:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete unless shown notable. If her claim to fame is an an actress, no IMDB presense severely hurts her case.  If her claim to fame is as a blogger, well, that's just silly.  Having a blog makes one about as famous as does having a cat.  Friday (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: I updated the article, and included a few notable names she's had on her show.  I think her ability to have extended length (not "assembly line" or "red carpet") interviews with famous people has some significance to this debate.  --rob 15:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; Nah, ... sorry. :) &mdash; RJH 16:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep definitely notable and has a strong following. Sean Bonner 18:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as per Pburka. Hall Monitor 22:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Researched her and she is definitely notable per statements above and more. Feel that some of the delete comments weren't researched or are now moot as the wiki page has been updated with more information. Knowstuff 18:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * if this article stays, i'm gonna create an article about myself and point to jessica stover as evidence that i'm "notable". these vanity pages are trying way too hard, and it shows; nothing there except "became known" claims for a comparative unknown. SaltyPig 19:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Who's Jessica Strover? Why haven't I heard of this actress? 3 September 2005 (UTC) 67.176.186.22
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.