216:- A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, 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.
391:
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.
207:" 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..
512:: 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
599:(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 Knowledge (XXG) 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.
875:. 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.
299:
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
910:
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
856:
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
400:
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
390:
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
192:
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
465:
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
911:
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.
895:
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
424:
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
349:
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
544:- 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.
447:
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
410:
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
896:
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.
728:. The writer of the article is new to Knowledge (XXG), 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 Knowledge (XXG) defines
161:
811:
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.
784:- 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.
342:
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.
435:, 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
697:
757:- 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
114:
677:
441:
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.
657:
155:
761:
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
319:
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.
732:
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.
422:
Levine, Irene (3 February 2010). "New Girl on the Block: Amanda Blain New opportunities for women to forge real friendships online". Psychology Today. -
347:
Levine, Irene (3 February 2010). "New Girl on the Block: Amanda Blain New opportunities for women to forge real friendships online". Psychology Today.
239:
Levine, Irene (3 February 2010). "New Girl on the Block: Amanda Blain New opportunities for women to forge real friendships online". Psychology Today.
121:
406:
I disagree with above analysis and at least i'm finally getting some real answers here after asking several times (including teahouse, irc chat,
418:
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"
480:"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.
476:
a direct interview where she talks about google plus and her experiences specifically, as well as being called one of its biggest influencers
454:
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.
277:"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.
585:
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?
516:, none of which does much to establish notability, even if taken together. There's a good reason why this article was rejected at AFC.
572:
17:
931:
87:
82:
91:
930:. the failure to explain notability in a succinct way is a system problem, not a new editor problem. i see one good reference
531:
Since I'm learning as I go here. The reasons for my Keep: I felt these best described an
Internet Personality celebrity -
176:
474:
a b c
Boitnott, John (25 Feb 2013). "One of G+’s Biggest Influencers Explains Why You Can’t Ignore It Anymore". ViralHeat.
396:
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
362:
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.
262:
a b c
Boitnott, John (25 Feb 2013). "One of G+’s Biggest Influencers Explains Why You Can’t Ignore It Anymore". ViralHeat.
74:
839:
143:
1065:
40:
568:
835:
513:
300:
the ability for a C-level article with help from some more experienced authors about "advertorial" and the style.
1042:
916:
847:
521:
52:. Policy based consensus is rather clear as the sources provided was easily rebuked for failing our guidelines.
137:
488:
According to the speaker page , spoke as the expert about Google Plus at a very large social media conference
729:
985:
968:
133:
1061:
1046:
1029:
1008:
989:
972:
943:
920:
905:
890:
866:
851:
828:
793:
774:
747:
709:
689:
669:
646:
629:
608:
589:
576:
557:
525:
502:
383:
330:
309:
197:
56:
36:
762:
541:
1038:
912:
857:
full of very poorly sourced articles and persons and that seems to be very important to many of you.
843:
724:
of this person as a real person (the sort of coverage that includes genuine biographical details) in
634:
That's rather an assertion without evidence. Please can you explain which sources you think pass the
517:
429:
Lowen, Linda. "Make New
Friends - Online Friendship Sites Help Women Make New Friends". About.com. -
183:
940:
901:
883:
862:
824:
804:
740:
604:
553:
498:
354:
Lowen, Linda. "Make New
Friends - Online Friendship Sites Help Women Make New Friends". About.com.
305:
169:
1017:
721:
538:- Cult following of 2.5 million - Average blog post or G+ posts gets several thousand interactions
416:
Tuhuh-Dubrow, Rebecca (13 July 2012). "Women Can
Connect, Click by Click". The New York Times. -
340:
Tuhuh-Dubrow, Rebecca (13 July 2012). "Women Can
Connect, Click by Click". The New York Times. -
242:
Lowen, Linda. "Make New Friends - Online Friendship Sites Help Women Make New Friends". About.com.
617:
582:
439:
Levine, Irene (2011), "Female Friends - Go Online To Connect", Women's World (May 23rd): 22 -
360:
Levine, Irene (2011), "Female Friends - Go Online To Connect", Women's World (May 23rd): 22 -
981:
964:
705:
685:
665:
236:
Tuhuh-Dubrow, Rebecca (13 July 2012). "Women Can Connect, Click by Click". The New York Times.
78:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1060:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
927:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
466:
the industry. I'm not sure how they 'count for nothing' and are considered 'press releases'.
445:
Levine, Irene. "New Girl on the Block? Use the Internet to Find Friends". Huffington Post. -
366:
Levine, Irene. "New Girl on the Block? Use the Internet to Find Friends". Huffington Post.
639:
635:
535:
245:
Levine, Irene (2011), "Female Friends - Go Online To Connect", Women's World (May 23rd): 22
789:
432:
248:
Levine, Irene. "New Girl on the Block? Use the Internet to Find Friends". Huffington Post.
149:
725:
452:
Burbach, Cherie (2012). "Favorite Website for Meeting New Friends for 2012". About.com.
372:
Burbach, Cherie (2012). "Favorite Website for Meeting New Friends for 2012". About.com.
1025:
1004:
935:
897:
876:
858:
820:
808:
770:
733:
625:
600:
549:
494:
301:
251:
Burbach, Cherie (2012). "Favorite Website for Meeting New Friends for 2012". About.com.
1037:
while the coverage is indepedent sources is not overwhelming, it is more than trivial.
326:
872:
819:? Youtube is a social network just as much as GooglePlus and in fact it is smaller.
701:
681:
661:
643:
586:
460:
Are the sources not supposed to back up the specific points? Thats how I used them.
407:
380:
194:
70:
62:
108:
53:
785:
482:
Interviewed with other major social media players as an expert on Google Plus
1021:
999:
963:
Not even close to enough in depth coverage in reliable third party sources.
766:
621:
271:"Winners of the 2012 Spirit of Google+ Awards". Media Tapper. June 28, 2012.
256:
Industry publications related to the person but independent of the subject
321:
213:
1054:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
871:
We are here to discuss and evaluate one article now and that is
815:
If "social networking sites" do not count for notability then -
805:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Canadian_Internet_personalities
816:
368:
Same problems as the psychology today article as its identical
803:- Thanks for your comments. Its helpful. This entire section
274:
Shervington, Martin (2012). The Art & Science of Google+.
265:
Google's Suggested User List, , Retrieved on August 20, 2012
997:. Good amount of secondary source coverage of the topic. —
431:
Im not sure how this doesn't count "at all". Its owned by
809:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Internet_personalities
104:
100:
96:
168:
282:
Independent publications - only to verify statements
698:
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions
182:
1020:of this person in independent, reliable sources.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1068:). No further edits should be made to this page.
567:per the above ahem somewhat verbose discussion.
765:and have Ms. Blain's article redirect to that.
678:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
8:
696:Note: This debate has been included in the
676:Note: This debate has been included in the
658:list of Ontario-related deletion discussions
656:Note: This debate has been included in the
695:
675:
655:
335:Lets look at these sources in more detail:
222:Analysis of the 15 sources in the article:
401:had an ok amount of press and following.
214:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:PEOPLE
817:http://en.wikipedia.org/YouTube_Stars
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
933:, but regrettably not enough, yet.
486:NMX Speaker Page, April 1, 2013 -
24:
374:About.com isn't a reliable source
356:About.com isn't a reliable source
229:Published Major Secondary Sources
980:at the page creators request.
288:Google Social Statistics, 2012
268:NMX Speaker Page, April 1, 2013
1:
726:independent, reliable sources
294:Circle Count, August 20, 2012
1085:
1047:16:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
1030:11:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
1009:19:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
990:11:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
978:Userfy or send back to AfC
973:03:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
944:11:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
921:18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
906:18:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
891:17:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
867:17:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
852:16:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
829:16:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
794:15:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
775:13:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
748:05:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
710:01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
690:01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
670:01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
647:05:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
630:01:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
609:21:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
590:05:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
577:20:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
558:17:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
526:11:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
503:09:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
384:07:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
331:07:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
310:06:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
198:04:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
57:04:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
1057:Please do not modify it.
569:Barney the barney barney
32:Please do not modify it.
291:Amanda Blain on Google+
1018:significant coverage
928:Knowledge (XXG):TLDR
722:significant coverage
840:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
581:That's kinda of a
48:The result was
1039:John Pack Lambert
763:Girlfriend Social
712:
692:
672:
1076:
1059:
938:
888:
886:Let's discuss it
880:
836:WP:LOTSOFSOURCES
745:
743:Let's discuss it
737:
514:WP:LOTSOFSOURCES
187:
186:
172:
124:
112:
94:
34:
1084:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1066:deletion review
1055:
1016:due to lack of
934:
913:Dominus Vobisdu
884:
878:
844:Dominus Vobisdu
741:
735:
720:due to lack of
518:Dominus Vobisdu
433:InterActiveCorp
129:
120:
85:
69:
66:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1082:
1080:
1071:
1070:
1050:
1049:
1032:
1011:
992:
975:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
854:
813:
812:
797:
796:
778:
777:
751:
750:
714:
713:
693:
673:
652:
651:
650:
649:
611:
594:
593:
592:
561:
560:
546:
545:
539:
529:
528:
506:
505:
491:
490:
484:
478:
471:
470:
467:
462:
461:
457:
456:
450:
443:
437:
427:
420:
413:
412:
403:
402:
393:
392:
387:
386:
377:
376:
370:
364:
358:
352:
345:
337:
336:
333:
313:
312:
296:
295:
292:
289:
286:
285:
278:
275:
272:
269:
266:
263:
260:
259:
252:
249:
246:
243:
240:
237:
233:
232:
225:
224:
218:
217:
209:
208:
190:
189:
126:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1081:
1069:
1067:
1063:
1058:
1052:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1006:
1002:
1001:
996:
993:
991:
987:
983:
979:
976:
974:
970:
966:
962:
959:
958:
945:
942:
937:
932:
929:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
918:
914:
909:
908:
907:
903:
899:
894:
893:
892:
889:
887:
882:
881:
874:
870:
869:
868:
864:
860:
855:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
833:
832:
831:
830:
826:
822:
818:
810:
806:
802:
799:
798:
795:
791:
787:
783:
780:
779:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
753:
752:
749:
746:
744:
739:
738:
731:
727:
723:
719:
716:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
694:
691:
687:
683:
679:
674:
671:
667:
663:
659:
654:
653:
648:
645:
641:
637:
633:
632:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
612:
610:
606:
602:
598:
595:
591:
588:
584:
580:
579:
578:
574:
570:
566:
563:
562:
559:
555:
551:
548:
547:
543:
540:
537:
534:
533:
532:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
508:
507:
504:
500:
496:
493:
492:
489:
485:
483:
479:
477:
473:
472:
468:
464:
463:
459:
458:
455:
451:
449:
444:
442:
438:
436:
434:
428:
426:
421:
419:
415:
414:
409:
405:
404:
399:
395:
394:
389:
388:
385:
382:
379:
378:
375:
371:
369:
365:
363:
359:
357:
353:
351:
346:
344:
339:
338:
334:
332:
328:
324:
323:
318:
315:
314:
311:
307:
303:
298:
297:
293:
290:
287:
283:
280:
279:
276:
273:
270:
267:
264:
261:
257:
254:
253:
250:
247:
244:
241:
238:
235:
234:
230:
227:
226:
223:
220:
219:
215:
212:According to
211:
210:
206:
202:
201:
200:
199:
196:
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
135:
132:
131:Find sources:
127:
123:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1056:
1053:
1034:
1013:
998:
994:
982:Technical 13
977:
965:Stuartyeates
960:
885:
877:
873:Amanda Blain
834:Please read
814:
800:
781:
758:
754:
742:
734:
730:"notability"
717:
613:
597:On The Fence
596:
564:
530:
509:
487:
481:
475:
453:
446:
440:
430:
423:
417:
397:
373:
367:
361:
355:
348:
341:
320:
316:
281:
255:
228:
221:
204:
191:
179:
173:
165:
158:
152:
146:
140:
130:
117:
71:Amanda Blain
63:Amanda Blain
49:
47:
31:
28:
542:WP:CREATIVE
469:Including :
156:free images
642:. Thanks.
1062:talk page
936:Slowking4
898:Geek4gurl
859:Geek4gurl
821:Geek4gurl
702:• Gene93k
682:• Gene93k
662:• Gene93k
616:, passes
601:Siryendor
550:Geek4gurl
495:Geek4gurl
425:confused.
411:creators.
302:Geek4gurl
193:deleted.
37:talk page
1064:or in a
618:WP:BASIC
583:WP:METOO
115:View log
39:or in a
801:Comment
755:Comment
644:Spartaz
587:Spartaz
408:Spartaz
398:million
381:Spartaz
350:notable
195:Spartaz
162:WP refs
150:scholar
88:protect
83:history
1014:Delete
961:Delete
879:Cullen
782:Delete
736:Cullen
718:Delete
640:WP:BIO
536:WP:ENT
510:Delete
448:found.
317:Delete
134:Google
92:delete
54:Secret
50:delete
786:Sionk
327:talk
177:JSTOR
138:books
122:Stats
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1043:talk
1035:Keep
1026:talk
1022:Keri
1005:talk
1000:Cirt
995:Keep
986:talk
969:talk
941:†@1₭
917:talk
902:talk
863:talk
848:talk
838:and
825:talk
807:and
790:talk
771:talk
767:Tarc
706:talk
686:talk
666:talk
638:and
626:talk
622:Zoke
614:Keep
605:talk
573:talk
565:Keep
554:talk
522:talk
499:talk
306:talk
205:Keep
170:FENS
144:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
759:one
636:GNG
322:DGG
184:TWL
113:– (
1045:)
1028:)
1007:)
988:)
971:)
919:)
904:)
865:)
850:)
842:.
827:)
792:)
773:)
708:)
700:.
688:)
680:.
668:)
660:.
628:)
620:.
607:)
575:)
556:)
524:)
501:)
329:)
308:)
164:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
1041:(
1024:(
1003:(
984:(
967:(
939:⇔
915:(
900:(
861:(
846:(
823:(
788:(
769:(
704:(
684:(
664:(
624:(
603:(
571:(
552:(
520:(
497:(
325:(
304:(
284:-
258:-
231:-
203:"
188:)
180:·
174:·
166:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
136:(
128:(
125:)
118:·
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.