Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik


 * 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 No consensus.. w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 19:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Justine Ezarik

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I only discovered this article when looking up on iPhone and considering somebody was going to nominating this, I may as well just to cut to the chase and do it. Nominated for deletion for purely non-notable one trick pony of an internet celebrity who is known for just that stupid bill which she requested for the sake of publicity which I heard has been sucessgfully afd'd

When it come to fame, Justine Ezarik has the fame span of Chris Crocker, another already afd nominee who is famous for making an imbecille rant. Dr Tobias Funke 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article seems to be about a lifecaster/video podcaster who has both notability evidence and appears well referenced.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to have received sufficient coverage. Better this than an article on her one podcast. --Dhartung | Talk 02:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to be pretty notable.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable enough to me. Maxamegalon2000 05:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable enough to me as well.--Prof.Thamm 06:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment See the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Please give reasons based on policies and guidelines, not just "Seems notable" or "Doesn't seem notable" or "ILIKEIT" or "IDONTLIKEIT". Edison 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The iPhone bill viral video obviously put her way over the top in terms of notability, as shown by objective evidence in multiple reliable secondary sources, so this AfD based purely on subjective judgments is absurd. She is at least marginally notable for other things including the Yahoo! contest, her celebrity in techie community, and for being a pioneer in the lifecasting medium. That's not just my POV--when she was interviewed in relation to the iPhone bill, the interviewers also discussed her other activities, which means they found them notable enough to devote air time to them, e.g. see: Fox News and NPR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 10:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on all Keep nominations A few things to say, if she came 2nd in this contest, then why didn't the winner have his own page here. I nominated this as I feel this is created for the sake of making that Justine woman famous as stated by one person, plus that bill will all be forgotten in a few weeks or months time. As with the bill, I love to ask which one came first, the media coverage or this page - if this page came first, well that says it all, this website made her famous rather than anything else. I think I can smell fancruftism here, stated by somebody and look like you all who voted keep are people who watch her stupid website and have nothing better to do. Most of all, I would like to say to you all, state why is she notable other than that stupid bill which she requested as none of you have given a reason why. Dr Tobias Funke 00:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment on the contest is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument which is irrelevant for the reasons given there. Your assertion that the bill will be forgotten is inconsistent with both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. You can answer your own question about which came first by reviewing the article history, but it's not relevant to this discussion either, we are only concerned with the subject now. Your following comments appear to be inconsistent with the WP:AGF policy, because they speculate on motivation. Your final assertion is also false, as the references show, because AT&T used detailed billing as the default. Dhaluza 01:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral for now. She's merely news right now, but who knows? It seems she might be notable even besides the iPhone event. Bearian 00:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete I agree that she does not seem notable enough for an article of her own. Strictly judging the article on its own notability, it just doesn't seem to qualify. It seems like an advertisement for her 24-hour broadcast of herself and I don't really see that changing. That's my complete reason, and I'm not going to make this into a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument because that's not necessary, but the winner of the Yahoo contest does not have an article; getting a $300 Iphone bill, while garnering attention of the news outlets for one or two slow news cycles, does not make you inherently notable enough for an encyclopedia entry on yourself (and I believe the $300 IPhone bill article has been deleted also, so that's not notable by itself, either). Recently I voted on the deletion nomination of a Harvard scientist who is winner of a MacArthur genius grant award; most people voting agreed that this award itself did not make the subject notable (although I disagreed). If a person who receives the prestigious MacArthur genius grant is not notable enough for Wikipedia editors, why would a person placing second in a Yahoo video contest meet the qualifications? The only reason the article on the Yahoo video contest appears is because it's her local, hometown newspaper.--Gloriamarie 00:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of notability is a purely subjective judgement inconsistent with the WP:N guideline, and your assertion that the story ran for 2 slow news cycles is demonstrably false. Google News has coverage over a 15 day period, and the subject was featured prominently in the coverage, including feature interviews. The interviews were also notable for the reactions of the interviewers to her life casting activity during the interview. Also, it was a 300-page not $300 bill. Dhaluza 01:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to state on between which 15 days, starting from when also, how many of it was there following the existence of the 300 page bill article and don't forget, even news office will use this site as an uncredited source. Plus to get attention from the press as I have found out recently, is not too difficult as all it involves is...John Doe goes to the press office and tell them about his lives, therefore if interesting enough, news coverage in no time and instant fame for Mr Doe. Talking about notability, considering that iJustine is more as they are in par with all other youtube "celebrities" and reality TV contestants who have not won the contest, try say that about people who have argued over deletions of reality TV contestants' articles as they have so much in common, they get heavy news coverage (despite not winning the contest) and their articles can never go anywhere without being successfully deleted following an AFD discussion, unless they achieved some notability, such as a long term showbiz career. In all, their reason for existence is purely nothing but fame, otherwise to keep themselves away from flipping burgers at Bugger King, well thats my POV. Willirennen 12:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT. -- Craigtalbert 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - notable and well-referenced. Reccomend possible restart; creater canvassed peoples talk pages. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 11:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. She goes on some YouTube rant which got a little coverage a month ago, now it's over and done with.  As the nominator said, a one-trick pony. Cap'n Walker 15:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and per the essays Recentism and WP:NOTNEWS, or Merge to the article about the actual bill,300-page iPhone bill which is apparently the only claim this individual has to fame, besides being a runnerup in a talent show. The article 300-page iPhone bill was deleted after an AFD, then restored after a DRV  . The bill which resulted from her accepting the default of detailed printed billing, then making thousands of text messages, then (amazingly) receiving exactly the bill she should have expected, then seeking fame by making a video about it. How many articles does Wikipedia need about one phone bill received by one individual? If someone requested junk mail from every conceivable source, then got an email inbox or real life mailbox full of junk mail, and it became a watercooler story for a few days, they would not be entitled to a permanent encyclopedia entry, and neither is she. Edison 16:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: I tend to believe that "nobility" shouldn't be JUST among the Internet users. In my definition of nobility, you should at the very least be able to walk into a non-Internet town and a few people there would know who the person is. If you actually searched for my real name, I'd be found at several thousand places on the 'net. But I'm not going to create a wiki article because of it. Same thing with this Justine gal - she is notable only among the very intense of Internet users. I continue to question Wikipedia's current stance on notibility of Internet personalities, and will offer my delete vote to what I consider these frivolous articles. Groink 20:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you dismissing the Sydney Morning Herald and San Francisco Chronicle  as frivolous sources? Dhaluza 02:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not the external sources... Many of the Wikipedia articles themselves are frivolous - as they're kept up because of the nobability policy. To add to this, if you read WP:N, a person's notability must also be long-term. If it wasn't for the 300-page bill, Justine would not even be short-term notable. As pointed out by WP:N, "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Groink 10:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think those sources show she was notable for her life casting activity even before the bill thing, and her article was originally based on those sources. Having full-length exclusive bio feature articles in two independent mainstream newspapers would normally qualify someone for inclusion as notable per WP:BIO, and as such, their notability is not temporary. The 300-page bill should add to that notability, not subtract as you and many other commenters seem to be suggesting. There is no need to speculate on future coverage, there is more than enough mainstream coverage already published and cited to firmly establish notability according to the WP consensus standard (personal notability theories notwithstanding). Based on the sourcing available, if you still think the article is frivolous, then this is a reason to improve the article, not delete it. If you think the subject is frivolous, then you are substituting your own subjective judgment for reliance on reliable sources, ignoring the guidance at WP:N. Dhaluza 11:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: NN, also less than trivial claim of fame and a deliberate attempt to kill a tree for a so-called environmentalist purely to seek fame. Also as the nominator said - "a non-notable one trick pony of an internet celebrity", also as I said with the 300 page afd, this site is not a platform to make people famous and it appears that this is happening with the afd nominee. Plus as stated, because its not out yet in the UK, I have not heard this in the news or anywhere, not even in Nerdtech Monthly as I only discovered the 300 page stuff when it was a DYK nominated article. to answer Dhaluza's question, I will answer this as I didn't have the opportunity to last time when the nomination was closed, 1st answer: as a corporation, do they give a damn, for me I wouldn't at all, 2nd answer: even corporation make mistakes, even Sony do and who doesn't, at the end of the day there will always be a high profile "first month of release" cock-up which typical of corporations. Willirennen 00:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What question are you answering? Dhaluza 02:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This one, it was for that I never got the chance to answer back when the nomination was closed. Willirennen 11:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It saddens me to admit that the amount of sourcing demands that we keep this completely moronic article. I honestly believe that we should ignore the letter of the law in this case and admit that this is inherited notability. Otherwise, it's setting a dangerous precedent. Van Tucky  Talk 03:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or at the very least Merge to 300-page iPhone bill per BLP1E.  E LIMINATOR JR  11:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a sad day that this person is considered notable in any way or worthy of being included in an encyclopaedia. Delete per nom. Watchingthevitalsigns 11:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete She really isn't too notable other than the Iphone bill. Most of her article is referring to the Iphone or her origins. I say merge with Iphone because she doesn't have any big claims to fame other than that 97.99.27.99 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RECENT--Macallan 12 01:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A notable individual whose strong claims of notability are backed up thoroughly by reliable and verifiable sources. It's a sad day if the deletionists destroy an article that documents notability this thoroughly. Alansohn 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject meets and exceeds WP:BIO as evidenced by the multiple and highly-reliable references provided within the article.  It does not matter how WP:RECENT these references were published.  Yamaguchi先生 01:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete her 15 minutes of fame are over... we dont need yet another random internet celeb who'll be forgotten next month.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 04:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your assumption is demonstrably false. This Yahoo! News feature by Kevin Sites published after the iPhone bill video discusses her lifecasting activities in detail, without even mentioning the bill. Dhaluza 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see a no-consensus coming up. I'd say weak keep if this passes WP:DRV if she gets famous. She has notablity only because of the iPhone bill, which makes me want to merge, but her other merits are borderline non-notable. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 04:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Well known and respected in various tech groups. It's not all about the iPhone bill, either. Peppery9 05:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Stong Keep Admittedly I'm new to this but is there a more famous person that needs the space? Justine (or more properly iJustine) is just at the beginning of her rise. She is also (I believe) inventing a new business model that may someday prove to be useful. If you delete her today - you'll be putting her back tomorrow. This seems weird to have a quasi-intellectual discussion about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.250.33 (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Looks like somebody above is spamming on this discussion here


 * Keep. Appears to have enough coverage to establish notability as of now, and there is no reason to assume more will not be forthcoming. Notability does not degrade over time. • Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, look like the way a less than notable person to become famous is by going for a round of attention seeking, then grab the local media to get some press, then hey presto instant fame, then some weirdo wikipedia editor who stalking on the forums decides to write an article claiming that she is notable, and then when theis becomes a afd discussion and then keep - why - because the article has been sourced.
 * Keep per Dhaluza, notability was evident prior to the whole iPhone bill debacle. RFerreira 19:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep She has some fame on the internet, after all everyone above me knows about her and I'm sure many of you found out about her through a news source of some sort. I don't understand why anyone would want to delete a wikipedia article of somebody that has made some form of impact on the internet, why should it matter how or why she has become somewhat famed and talked about on mainstream news broadcasts? The 300 page bill is a notable event that has its own article and the poster of the bill has acquired fame from this so her story is notable as well, it's not about how credible her achievements are, her popularity is all that matters as that ensures that an article on her will inform others of who she is. Thats my take on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XenoX101 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, under the impression that those who nominated keep are those who are regular visirors of her site, no other evidence of notability. Glen Watkins 13:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * — Glen Watkins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I was the first to argue to keep the article here and I'd not yet been to her site, although I have since for what that matters. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 14:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, sane reason as nominator. — American Sockpuppet Society (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete, per Edison. --Jklamo 15:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Utterly Strong Delete - non notable person with less than trivial claim to fame other than that 300 page bill. Jelly the Supermodel 16:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * — Jelly the Supermodel (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete I first heard of this woman on NPR, in relation to her 300-page bill. I was tempted, given I'd heard of her outside of here, to go for a keep.  However, it was just a single news item, and appears to be over already. &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, wiki isnt news. LightSpeed3 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * delete hurry up and delete this LightSpeed3 (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2008 (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.