Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Everywhere Girl (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 163.252.202.73 (talk) at 20:05, 11 July 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:05, 11 July 2006 by 163.252.202.73 (talk) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Everywhere Girl

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Fails WP:Bio and WP:NN. Dell, Gateway, Visa, and all other ads were photoshopped by The Inquirer. Everywhere Girl is a creation by The Inquirer, a tech tabloid news website with a tendency to manufacture rumors, speculation, and outright lies. Her blog being confirmed by The Inquirer, the creators of Everywhere Girl, therefore means nothing. Dionyseus 03:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

PROCEDURAL NOTE

  • The afd nomination itself has now been a subject of an article in the UK IT online magazine, The Inquirer. The article, which is sympathetic to Everywhere Girl, directly links to this discussion. The article suggests that her article has been "messed with" (I'm not sure what they mean by this). The article also labels Wikipedians (or perhaps just us delete voters) "Wiki Parrots". Sqwaaak?? As a point of information, I may have had time on my hands at the weekend, but it took less than 30 seconds to discover her real identity once the google cache was found (and I'm habitually check google caches anyway). Anyway, WELCOME INQUIRER READERS. Please read the big red notice above. Bwithh 18:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)



  • Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:NN. Zos 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Fails WP:BIO, WP:NN. Misplaced Pages is not designed as an indiscriminate collection for "bits of fun Internet history" (otherwise we may as well dumpload the entire usenet archives onto Misplaced Pages). Finally, even if this girl really is an "ordinary looking" person used in several different ads and not just a Inquirer fantasy, how on earth does that make her any more notable than the thousands of other people who also appear in several ads for different companies, particularly those in stock photos? Bwithh 04:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment On her blog, "Everywhere Girl" writes: My acting career is going well. It is a hard industry to get into, but I am making great progress. I have been in dozens of plays, I have a commercial running here in the States, I have done several short and independent films, some of which have made it to festivals such as Sundance and Outfest. I have a great agency with two awesome one-of-a-kind agents. They are diamonds in the rough here is Los Angeles. So yes, it is going well and it has been my passion for many many years. I feel blessed. I do hope that this may help my career, but whatever happens is fine…I am just having fun with it for now. A budding actor (who presumably wants to be in bigger films) who starts a self-promoting blog/myspace profile but decides to remain anonymous to the extent of having a hidden identity domain account? And who doesn't want to promote the indie films she's been in? Well, maybe her "awesome one-of-a-kind agents" are actually really bad.? (comment struck out based on everywheregirl taking responsibility for the blog herself) Bwithh 05:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


  • UNMASKED!!! Well that was easy. Here's the real website of the model: http://www.jenniferchandra.com/ Note how she is native to Portland, Oregon where the university photoshoot is said to have taken place. Also note how her resume sounds similar to the blog career posts. Also note how she looks like the girl in the other photos. Then there's this - doing podcasts for a London company - sounds like this. (although that gig does not appear to have become regular. This was giveaway (she changed her name on the current version of the blog. It led me to this, which gave me her website address. I think this is a real model and there are adverts using her which are certainly real. Having said that, this still appears to be much ado about nothing, and I think the blog may be a collaboration between her and the Inquirer - how to explain the blog's strange anonymity? I mean her talent agency page even has a direct contact phone number for her, yet the blog is totally anonymous? I think the Inquirer wants to keep this a long running enigma (comment struck out based on lastest posts by everywheregirl) Bwithh 09:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"jennaluna" also seems to be the one who first posted the inquirer story about her own blog to digg.com Bwithh 09:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Great work Bwithh! Her real website has so much information about her, I agree with you that it's very strange that her blog is so anonymous. Dionyseus 10:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
More unmasking There's more!! Here's her REAL blog: http://www.jensanity.com/ Her uncle tipped me off in an unguarded moment I dunno. Maybe now she's been unmasked on wikipedia, she can take over Rocketboom or something Bwithh 10:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
And her real MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/jennaluna It is interesting to note that her real MySpace has more friends than her fake MySpace. Dionyseus 10:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently her name isn't Jennifer Chandra, looks like that's only her acting name. Her real name is apparently Jennifer L Anderson. Dionyseus 11:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
However, Misplaced Pages is still primarily an encylopedia Bwithh 15:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Should we have articles on every recurrent model in stock photography? Bwithh 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least for now. It's not fake, I think I remember seeing her used around. Also see, for e.g., , , . I'm not sure how's jennaluna's related, but it doesn't look like the same person to me. Maybe add more details to the article as the mystery unravels? About importance, there are plenty of articles that are just as unimportant, but that's part of the Misplaced Pages charm, is it not? For e.g., Megadoomer or Googlefight. Call it pop culture. ehudshapira 20:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a minimum level of acceptability which applies to all articles. Misplaced Pages is an attempt at an encyclopedia, not a free-for-all. Every article is subjectable to afd nomination. The Pokemon defense doesn't hold much water Bwithh 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Jennaluna is her. Compare with . I don't know how you don't see the resemblence. She's also Jennifer Chandra, compare with . Her real name is Jennifer L Anderson. She and her character Everywhere Girl fails WP:Bio and WP:NN. Dionyseus 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Welcome, fanpuppets. Apparently she wanted to deal with regularly updated blog for her fans Bwithh 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Please only state your vote once. The key words in the sentence you highlighted are multiple and especially non-trivial, as well as independent (There clearly has been some relationship between the Inquirer and the subject in the past, if not over this blog). Stories in the Inquirer about a fad it itself created are not good evidence of notability Bwithh 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I've stricken the second bolded opinion by PPB5580... as Bwithh stated, please only render a bolded opinion once per AfD.--Isotope23 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable. As mentioned before the ma

in reason for her being noticed was because Gateway and Dell used the same stock photo for both their ads. Perhaps the self promoting via direct links to her blog could be removed and only refer to instead. The Inq have a good history on the event. Riscy 06:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)riscycdj

Are we to have articles on every person in stock photos used by more than one advertiser? Bwithh 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable. She's a real person, surprise surprise. The fact that she became an internet phenomenon to begin with is notable. Not to mention the articles written. Something should be added to the article, perhaps, but just because she's been found out doesn't mean it wasn't notable to begin with. --TastyHiHatWork 06:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The everywhere girl fad seems to have been a "internet phenomenon" localized to The Inquirer readership. Bwithh 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE

  • Everywheregirl now has a blog entry expressing her upset with the recent revelations above (User:Dionyseus and myself have been specifically singled out by Everywhere Girl as mean people who suck. On the other hand, her alter ego, jennaluna, is more pithy and simply calls us arseholes on her blog). My response is this:
    • The short (mean, sucking, but still truthful) answer is that such risk of exposure is the nature of faddish internet celebrity in the age of personal websites, public personal blogs and myspace. Multiplied by 10 when the faddish internet celebrity has a wikipedia entry and a well-intentioned, but still self-promoting anonymous blog (which highlights that very wikipedia entry)
    • Longer answer- this is because the wikipedia community is inherently full of people who need to verify through research - with many or even most of us concerned with encyclopedic notability. This, after all, is not a free-for-all site. It's an attempt at an encyclopedia, and one which has to deal with a large load of transient fads, potential hoaxes, possible vanity articles, and unverified content everyday. I sympathize with Jennifer's upset, but lack of familiarity with the nature of Misplaced Pages does not ethically or procedurally exempt the subjects of articles from the usual Misplaced Pages fact-checking. It may feel like being singled out - but really, this is a routine aspect of Misplaced Pages editing, so Jennifer shouldn't feel that she's being subject to standards of scrutiny different from anything else on the deletion discussion pages. Aside from the specific guidelines and policies Misplaced Pages has in place which frown on marketing/promotional activities on Misplaced Pages, this process is why Misplaced Pages is a poor place for such activities. Also, don't take the nomination for deletion personally - the nomination simply means that someone thinks that there should be a discussion about whether a subject is suitable for an online encyclopedia and is not about whether they are significant or important beyond that.
    • Some clarifications about aspects which Jennifer may be confused about, based on her emotional posting. Speculation (mostly, I think, followed by efforts at verification and sourcing) is a key part of the Misplaced Pages article for deletion discussion process. Dionyseus's original nomination was based on his genuine belief that the whole everywheregirl fad was a hoax undertaken by The Inquirer (the UK online IT magazine). He seems to have now modified that stance, judging by his striking out parts of his nomination. I too was suspicious that this may be an invention for marketing purposes. My investigation was motivated by Misplaced Pages's core principle of verification, and my results suggested the blog was not a hoax. (I would also note that The Inquirer previously tried to uncover her real identity to the point of asking Inquirer readers to help identify her). I now believe that Jennifer's everywheregirl blog is genuine, although I maintain my stance that the subject is not suitable for an encylopedia on notabiity grounds. During the process of speculation, I wrote a couple of off-the-cuff comments about Jennifer's agents and possible collusion with The Inquirer, which seem to have particularly upset Jennifer. I wholeheartedly retract those speculative comments. Though please note that the discussion, I think anyway (I can't speak for Dionyseus - I think he's mainly concerned about the Inquirer dimension), is now not concerned with whether or not the everywheregirl blog is genuine but whether the whole affair deserves its own article in a major encyclopedia.
    • Jennifer seems to be a genuinely nice person. She also seems to be unsure about how best to best deal with her modest degree of internet celebrity and the related online fans, and is ambivalent about how much exposure she should seek. Perhaps I have an unsophisticated idea about the motives of budding Hollywood actors (largely based on HBO's Unscripted - this whole affair would make a great episode storyline if that show is ever revived), so I'll accept that there is no collusion between Jennifer and the Inquirer, and that the anonymity of the blog (plus the digg/wikipedia/myspace promotional dimension) was not necessarily sufficient grounds for not assuming good/pure intentions. But I was half-serious about Jennifer going on to take over Rocketboom - specific examples aside, if Jennifer decides to continue to assert her Everywheregirl status, then I suggest she do it wholeheartedly in the spirit of celebrity (rather than the ambivalent mixing of anonymity and promotion) and perhaps she'll have a good shot at finding a rewarding place in the sun in the Web 2.0 world (perhaps in an online video revival of Unscripted - harness the power of youtube, Jennifer!). Whether she chooses that path or not, very possibly, one day, Jennifer will be notable enough that even I would approve of an encyclopedia article about her. Best of luck to her. Bwithh 08:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I wrote a response at her Everywhere Girl blog, it is currently awaiting her approval, but one of the things I said is that perhaps a small section about Everywhere Girl can be added to the stock photography article. Dionyseus 08:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, are we to have articles on every recurrent image/model in stock photography Bwithh 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:Bio and WP:NN. If we use fail criteria outlined by others on this page we would have to delete every actor who has not won an academy award (the afore mentioned Paris Hilton included). The choice of her image out of all of those available in stock photography tells us much about ourselves and our society. She is a valid cultural phenomenom just as many in Andy Warhol's circle (and Warhol himself) Toysrus 14:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This article does not pass WP:Bio and WP:NN. Paris Hilton on the other hand passes WP:Bio and WP:NN because she is a widely recognized celebrity. Dionyseus 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hilton has also starred in a primetime US TV show and is notable in her own right as a heiress socialite. Bwithh 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ah, welcome everywheregirl fanpuppets. User:Toysrus - are you seriously basing your keep argument on Jennifer Chandra's acting career so far, and are you serious in your claim that Everywhere Girl is a current day equivalent of Andy Warhol? In any case you're exaggerating with your Academy Award comments Bwithh 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Could Dionyseus please explain how this fails WP:Bio and WP:NN other than unsubstantiated claims of photoshopping? --192.25.22.11 14:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It fails WP:Bio and WP:NN because it does not meet any of its criteria. Dionyseus 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The reasons why I wrote the article originally still stand. The "Everywhere Girl" is a notable internet/advertising phenomenon. That piece of stock photography was used not just by different companies, but by competing companies. Also, it has since then become a phenomenon in itself. I wouldn't be surprised if companies are using her photos because she's the Everywhere Girl now. It just seems odd NOT to have a Misplaced Pages entry about it. -213.84.37.190 15:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How is it a notable advertising phenomenon? 2 companies used a stock photo? The Inquirer noticed and ran articles on a slow news day? The subject got a blog and played along? No other news agency picked this up. the subject falls well short of WP:BIO and the whole incident falls well short of any reasonable definition of a meme.--Isotope23 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:IMP. I believe this article qualifies for inclusion based on Misplaced Pages Importance due to the discussion. While an addition to "stock photography" could be added I think the "bar has been met" for inclusion.--Celestil 15:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable and definitely genuine. When I started a UK university in 1999, the cover one of the magazines in the information pack featured Jennifer. This was a hard copy and 2 years before I even started reading the Inquirer website. (I would've kept the magazine had I known it would become a memorabilia...)--Maxpower4649 16:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment No, your university magazine didn't "feature" Jennifer. It had an anonymous photo of Jennifer in it taken from a stock photography database when the magazine graphics editors were looking for a generic college student picture Bwithh 17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is it THAT big of a deal? You started this discussion saying the pictures were photoshopped, which it would seem was your main reason. We all know that this was a bunch of rubbish on your part Dionyseus. So tell me, what are your motives for wanting to get her entry removed from wikipedia? Sharpshot 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As stated in the nomination, it fails WP:Bio and WP:NN, the photos were never the main reason. Dionyseus 16:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep or Strong Merge with Stock photography - Everywhere Girl seems to be somewhat notable - there are 161,000 results on Google for "everywhere girl" with quotes.--Bhtooefr 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of those hits are unrelated to this Everywhere Girl, and the rest are just The Inquirer references. Dionyseus 17:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Misplaced Pages is all about being a record for worthless internet history. Bingo! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.172.32 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as non-notable model/actress. --Satori Son 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - interesting and informative (mis)use of stock photography - no - we don't need to write up every one that has a similar experience... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ratledge (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep - I wonder how much time Dionyseus took to inspect the thousands Google hits for "everywhere girl" since he claims that mostly aren't related to her (how many everywhere girls are out there, huh?). By the way The Inquirer's references are also about her, aren't they? Also, I'd like to know the real Dionyseus's motives to wipe her image. He's clearly crusading against her, the photoshop thing was ridiculous, since INQ provided working links to the very websites. Anyway I'm not citting any laws or rules, but I just "feel" that an article in Misplaced Pages about her is very appropriate. Nonetheless I think I would be surprised if I never came to her entry here. When I first saw her article I actually searched Misplaced Pages for her, and I knew that she had to be here. 201.31.11.62 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Oh, how could I forgot to mention that! I live in Brazil and I saw with my bare eyes her picture in a booth about students traveling inside a mall. Here in my city! I was amazed. Also, I'm a long time INQ reader and I trust with my heart that INQ had no previous relationship with her at all. 201.31.11.62 18:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Do not assume bad faith. 100's of articles are deleted daily, this is merely one of those articles. Dionyseus 18:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable, and Misplaced Pages doesn't have the constraints of a paper encyclopedia. Richard W.M. Jones 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with stock photography. I do not see how it fails WP:Bio and WP:NN.Tj333 18:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment All first time contributors would do well to read WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BIO. I have yet to see anyone here make a credible argument as to why Ms. Chandra should be included based on the accepted guidelines for inclusion of a living person. As for framing this as an internet meme, there are currently no accepted guidelines for inclusion of memes, but in almost all meme's AfD's I've seen that the meme was successfully kept, someone laid out a strong case that the meme had achieved some level of pervasiveness great enough that it had been covered by multiple independent sources (see the proposed guidelines at WP:MEME. Right now I don't see any evidence that Everwhere Girl comes close to being a meme. There is essentially one website (Inquirer) out there that is covering/creating this story, her own MySpace/Website/Blog, a mention on Digg which hovers around 15 diggs (compare with this article which has 4450 diggs and still was deleted from Misplaced Pages as falling below the threshold for a meme), and several blogs/forum posts about this. Generally a successful meme will spawn copycats (like All your base are belong to us or Starwars kid). I've gone through a number of links off Google to mentions of "Everywhere Girl" and I just don't see anything compelling that leads me to believe this is a widely distributed internet meme that has moved beyond the readership of the Inquirer in any meaningful way. I welcome any evidence to the contrary.--Isotope23 18:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I think it hasn't moved beyond the readership of INQ in a meaningful way, but the readership of INQ means a lot of people. As far as I know there are entries in paper encyclopedias known by much less people. 201.31.11.62 18:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment OK, but we are not debating paper encyclopedias, or how many people know about the specific subject of a specific article in a specific encyclopedia. By your admission, I don't know how "Everywhere Girl" could be construed as an internet meme if it has not permeated beyond readership of one online magazine. That just leaves the WP:BIO guidelines to measure against and I don't see any evidence that Ms. Chandra meets any of the criteria laid out at WP:BIO.--Isotope23 19:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Naconkantari 18:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tummellll 19:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC) acually added by User:69.86.101.78 who deleted Naconkantari's opinion in the process (should also mention that Tummellll is currently blocked from editing)--Isotope23 19:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO and all above. --Kuzaar 19:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The internet is all about firsts, and unique things. This is something that just happened, a unique first. Keep the entry, and let history judge... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.25.2 (talk • contribs)
Comment: User's first and only edit. --Kuzaar 19:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. You have an article for "Dread Pirate Roberts"; how different is Everywhere Girl? They both appear in media, they both are nicknames, etc.