Talk:Lonelygirl15

message: How come Daxflame can't have a wikipedia page and lonelygirl can? Somebody please explain this to me.
Answer: Because you haven't made one yet?  It's wikipedia.  24.10.118.175 21:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think either of them deserve Wikipedia pages, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a collection of Internet memes. --RucasHost 00:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Daxflame

message: I'm the one mostly responsible for the big cleanups (I've been on several different computers), but every time I come back I find it either mysteriously reverted to a half-finished article, or with large sections randomly cut out, and yet with no new entries on the edit history log telling me how it came to be that way.  75.46.39.88 10:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  welcome to the joy of shepherding popular articles.  See also the article on Yo yo.   -- brain (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Welcome to the Stalin-like regime of Wikinazi admins, who just make everything that does not fit into their world view vanish from reality. — 188.100.192.146 (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF??

message: I think this section needs to be cleaned up.  It just seems like an advertising section for cassiewatching with no real future speculation 69.181.251.112 18:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cassiewatching and future section

message: Jessica Lee Rose has been nominated for AfD. Please discuss whether it should be kept, deleted, merged, etc. there so that the issue can be decided officially and put to rest. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the conclusion reached was don't delete. But I wanted to raise the point that an issue such as this is unlikely to ever be put to rest. As with any article, whether or not the subject merits an aricle usually changes over time Nil Einne 17:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True that. At least now people have less authority to say "clearly so-and-so is true regarding merging/deleting/keeping" because it's actually been determined by process. (As in, it's not clear at all as there was no consensus to delete and no consensus on merging/not merging.) — Saxifrage ✎ 18:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, strike all that. Apparently a non-admin "closed" the AfD outside of proper process, so it's still open and undecided. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD on Jessica Lee Rose article 

message: How long is the current event tag going to stay on?  The hype surrounding LG15 has died down now.  If she keeps adding videos forever, will the tag stay up forever? --Tim1988 talk 17:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I threw it on there when there was still a lot of speculation and uncertainty.  I haven't really had time to follow the "event" lately -- has the truth solidified somewhat?  I'm all for pulling unneeded tags, but I can't claim to have enough knowledge currently to say if it should stay or not.  /Blaxthos 13:52, 23 September 2006 
There's a fairly good chance this thing will end in a few weeks time (around 10-12-06). Regardless, it's unlikely that it will go on for a long time in its present form, as both the Creators and young actors  presumably have ambitions to move into more traditional, better paying media.
Mortal Wombat 16:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick look at Google news shows some articles being written as recently as September 25th. But it's certainly on its last legs. - RoyBoy 800 03:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current event? 

message: Is the character, Lonelygir15 located in the US or NZ? Or elsewhere (not David)? Hahaha, sorry about the lame joke but where is the series set?--HamedogTalk|@ 05:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the characters location? 

message: I would like to congratulate the editors for their work. This is the kind of articles that make wikipedia a trash bin for imbecilic sub-cultures. You should be proud. Miskin 12:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bravo

message: You know, its funny... some girl posts some stupid videos on YouTube and it gets a Wikipedia article... And yet, a mysterious website pops up with a map with red dots over major cities and a countdown timer saying "eon8 is coming" and people panic, and it's article here gets deleted. Funny, a punk girl does nothing and gets something, and a researcher does something and gets nothing. Pathetic.--24.175.171.91 01:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you engage in personal attacks over spelling ( in an international site, no less ), making videos seen by a small fraction of a percent of the globe is not the definition of notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DigitalEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with Eon8 was that there were no credible sources about it. Wikipedia has to be a trusted source, not a listing of fads and rumors about them. There is enough published material about Lonelygirl to validate this article, whereas the only source for an Eon8 article (back then) would be someone going to the website himself and writing conjecture based on what he sees, which is personal research and isn't allowed as a source. Remember, Wikipedia wants to be used as a research tool and allowed as a source for school reports. --Asriel 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  heh 

message: I would like to congratulate the editors for their work. This is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia stand out from other reference works. I was searching for an article under the name Lonely Girl but then a friend told me the fictional character's full online name. It's a good article. You should be proud. — BrianSmithson 09:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that </sarcasm> — 188.100.192.146 (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bravo

message: I don't get it. Why is it so popular? I've read the synopsis and it doesn't seem like anything special.
:Why is Paris Hilton popular? Why are there more different soap operas on TV than you can count? There you go. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 16:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Popularity is not the same as notability.  The most popular people in my high school aren't listed in Wikipedia - this is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive list of people or alter egos.  DigitalEnthusiast 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is LonelyGirl15 still popular? wasn't her whole shtick about how a real chick would have such an unusual life? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.150.36.30 (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity 

message: Please stop adding links to "Unofficial spinoff sites". Per WP:EL, links not directly related to the subject of this article should be removed. An entire section dedicated to fan videos is entirely unnecessary here. WarpstarRider 06:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoffs 

message: Shouldn't there be something about gemmers19?
:I'd say no. As it is now, Gemma (and now "Jonas") are just characters in the Lonelygirl story. They could have their own sections within the LG article, but as accessory characters there's not much information about them to merit their own articles. --Asriel 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  gemmers19 

message: Real articles about valid topics are being removed left and right, and yet wikipedia is now a list of teenagers with chatroom nicknames??????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DigitalEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually bother to read the article? This has nothing to do with chatrooms or a real teenager, and the lonelygirl15 phenomenon received a LOT of media coverage at one stage. Nil Einne 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What, exactly, defines a "valid topic?" I've never seen any of these videos, but I can tell you without question that they are notable. If a "real article" is about a non-notable topic, then it should be deleted; otherwise, there's no reason not to have a WP article on it. I doubt you'll find many people arguing that this is not a "real article." -- Kicking222 15:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ^I agree!-xwestsidex  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.53.164 (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't exactly agree with a lot of the reasons wikipedia removes some of its articles. I don't see why anything of even minor note shouldn't have a mention somewhere. However, even following the rules, this definitely belongs here. As has been mentioned before, there has been a LOT of media coverage on this, and a lot of people are going to turn to wikipedia with questions. Other internet only projects a lot less visible in the public eye, and few people think it's a good idea to remove webcomics or Creative Commons. Linkskywalker 02:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you freaking kidding me? 

message: This doesn't sit right in the article:
"She was fucked when she was 12"
I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia should any way censor the use of vulgarity: more that it should be mindful of where it is used. And in this context it is entirely the wrong place. Ironically (and pejoratively) considering the subject matter, one could almost suggest that the level of expression is atypical of a Youtube "user". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.89.181 (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd and unnecessary use of slang 

message: I have not seen the episode of Law and Order in question, but is parody the right word to use? It implies humour; the L&O series are not noted for their satirical content. 60.241.2.91 12:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they're just known for having no original ideas and pulling every plot line from popular current events. If the line is still there I'll change it. --Asriel 04:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word Parody 

message: Hello 
he he he 
G'night —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.141.92.25 (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  subj111 

message: Why is there no information on the plot of the vlog?
:: I agree.  There should be some mention of the plot (naturally with spoilers tags).  This is consistent with other Wikipedia articles about notable works of fiction.209.59.32.184 07:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing? 

message: This article needs some serious pruning - the vast majority of the cited sources are either the lonelygirl15 website or related videos on YouTube. These are primary sources, and don't constitute reliable sources. A synthesis of primary sources constitutes original research, which is not allowed here. I'll stop short of taking this to AFD again, but if the OR isn't dealt with, it may end up there again in the future (and I will see to it that the AFD is semi-protected to prevent the problems in the second AFD). --Coredesat 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, your assertions are just completely incorrect.  CAA started to represent lonelygirl15's producers after the show became popular.  They didn't provide professional casting or professional actors.  (In fact, the lonelygirl15 guys put out the casting call on Craigslist.)  And besides, CAA is an agency, not a production company.  You can read about it in the Wired Story that's listed in the references -- it explains how they came to be represented by CAA and how the show is produced.  And lg15 people aren't the only who are now represented either... for example: "Ask a Ninja" -- if you spend five seconds doing a little research you can find out that they're represented by the United Talent Agency. --JayHenry 16:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR tag 

message: Should they be mentioned? cassieiswating and Carmen Electra were.
some of them are:
lordgreystoke422
itscassie
and
valleygirl15 (hollishillis).
They all have a large fan base. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KingK327 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they should not. --Coredesat 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are several prominent lg15 fan-fics with major followings 

message: i have a theory, not sure if it's backed up anywhere 'official' about lonelygirl attempting to (and arguably managing) to change the way we view soap operas, blogs, and the relationship of the internet to conventional media. 
however, this is only my theory and i'm not an accredited source. can we include it? i think it's valid. 
MadGoldfish 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nature of soap operas and mingling of media? 

message: I have to ask...  The first vote on this article passed with "delete".  The second vote, later in that month, was "unanimous keep".  ...why was there a second vote?  Should this article not have been deleted after the first vote?  And if this article exists, then where's the article for the Angry Video Game Nerd?  Where's the article for Armake12?  Where's the article for all those other YouTube bloggers?  Sorry, but I just...this just angers me.  What's so special about this "Lonelygirl15" chick that requires she have an article here on Wikipedia when so many other articles of higher importence have been instantly nuked? ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 09:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Joseph, a lot of people have asked this same question.  There are several reasons lonelygirl15 has an article, and some other people on YouTube do not. 1) lonelygirl15 is one of the top channels on all of YouTube.  She has over 90,000 subscribers.  Other very popular channels, like, Smosh or Renetto or Brookers also have Wikipedia articles.  2) lonelygirl15 has been the subject of a lot of attention:  The New York Times has written about her several times, as have The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and the story of lonelygirl15 has been on many TV shows as well.  The lonelygirl15 series won an award from VH1 and the actress in lonelygirl15 won a Webby and was featured on the cover of Wired Magazine.   3) The article was first deleted in August of 2006, before any of these stories had been written about lonelygirl15.  But once lonelygirl15 started showing up on Jay Leno it was important to have the article to cover this notable subject.  Hope that makes sense! --JayHenry 15:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does, and I thank you for your explaination.  Doesn't necessarily mean I have to like it, but still.  I was more or less just hoping for a valid explaination.  Which I feel I've recieved.  Heh.  ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 12:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unanimous Keep or Delete? 

message: There are quite a few links to LGPedia in several articles to do with lonelygirl15.  However, a lot of these take the old http://www.lonelygirl15.com domain name.  These do not work any more and should be changed to the http://www.1g15.com domain.  For example, a link to
 http://www.lonelygirl15.com/lgpedia/index.php/Yousef_Abu-Taleb
should be changed to
 http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php/Yousef_Abu-Taleb
Maybe a bot could help sort this out.  We obviously don't want broken links on our site ;-).  --Leon Byford 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot help? 

message: I removed a line in the character's bio stating that no one knew what became of him after the finale. Technically, no one knows what became of anyone after the finale, as season 2 has not yet begun. In addition, Spencer filmed the last video in the finale, so it is known that he was still present at the very end of season 1. If it is necessary to reinsert this sentence at some point, please place it after the footnote at the end of the paragraph rather than before (as it was when I deleted it), since it is not mentioned in that reference). --H-ko (Talk) 22:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spencer and Season 1 finale 

message: Do we have to use such an obscure word. I'm well read and very literate, however I had to look up this word to make sure my educated guess was correct. Ozdaren 05:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You’re kidding, right? You’ve never ever heard the word “fiction” or its variations? Sorry, but in that case you don’t even know what literate means, and all you are is… delusional. — 188.100.192.146 (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  fictive - fictional 

message: I watched about half an hours worth of videos and I can't figure it out. Is the show anti-religious? Is the show anti-religious? Or... anti-creepy shadowy religions? Or what? Is it anti-religions that don't try to explain why they believe in what they believe? Whats the deal/scoop/plot? Just want to know, kinda agnostic myself but I believe that all beliefs that don't involve killing, cannibalism, suicide, or sacrifice of life are okay. "The Order" seems to fall under the "killing+human sacrifice" territory.
In one episode they celebrated Christmas, leading me to believe that one or two of them were either Christian or agnostic. But I don't know, so anyone have the scoop?
:The Order is not any real religion, as have stated the show's creators. The Order kills girls with high levels of ribozymes in their blood, so that they can transfuse the blood with that of an Elder (the leaders of the Order). Since most people wouldn't sign up for something like that, the Order has two branches: the Hymn of One and OpAPHID. The Hymn of One is the recruitment branch, and supposed "religion." The Order is the secret society behind the Hymn of One. OpAPHID (full name: Operation APHID, leader's name: OpAphid) is the enforcement branch where they kill members of the Resistance. The Resistance tries to defy the Order. Daniel, Jonas, Sarah, Taylor, Spencer, and LaRezisto are currently in the Resistance (LaRezisto being the leader of the Resistance). Hope that helped! :) *silver*► 18:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So is this show anti-religious? As in all religions or just this "the order". 

message: From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20199343/
Lonelygirl15, a cyberspace superstar also know by the offline moniker “Bree Avery” died under mysterious circumstances in a nondescript medical facility Aug. 3 in or around Santa Monica, Calif. while participating (possibly against her will) in some vaguely explained cult ritual involving DNA or something. She was 17 … or there abouts.
What???   Latka 00:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in the season finale, Bree's character died because she ended up doing the Ceremony which caused her to die. *silver*► 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does this mean we will not see any lonelygirl15 anymore?! HURRAY! 84.108.89.102 15:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the other characters are still living and Season 2 has already started. Note that I said SEASON finale, not SERIES finale. *silver*► 17:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Bree died in an act of self-sacrifice to let her friends live normal lives".  I've read this sentence about a dozen times and I still don't have the slightest idea what it means.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.41.215 (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lonelygirl15, face of Web 2.0, dies at 17 

message: Someone has gone to the trouble of adding pictures and descriptions of all of the characters in the series, but without a "plot" section there's no indication of what any of the terms used to describe them mean. Please add a plot section! Luvcraft (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I came to this article to know what the show is about, and instead it has a bunch of useless information, none of which tells what the show is about. Is this even an article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.218.242 (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no-one has bothered to add anything on this topic, but I'm just going to make a similar post to the above two, here - what the hell is this thing actually ABOUT? Seriously! There's absolutely no description of the actual content! What are the videos actually about? Why was it unclear if they were real or fake? The article sure as heck uses a lot of words, but it neglects to actually what the subject of the entire thing is. - 86.147.48.10 (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Concur. There are references ("TAAG", "The Hymn of One", "trait positive") that are left entirely unexplained. If this article is to remain, someone familiar with the topic should flesh this stuff out. Further adding to the mess is that the LG15: The Resistance article has a plot summary that carries on from... nothing. Tevildoii (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  plot? 

message: Is Wikipedia a serious and credible place to search information?.
:Uuum, no? By definition of the “one global unbiased truth” pseudo-philosophy (rather: doctrine), they can not and will never have a chance to be credible. — 188.100.192.146 (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's serious only in certain parts. --TylerDurdenn (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia and lonelygirl15

message: I've never read anything as pathetic as this piece of crap. Oh wait, actually I did: a lot of Wikipedia is just like that. This is the cancer that kills your project. Before I forget it, it's biased in favor of those responsible for the hoax.
Sincerely, Anonymous  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.239.243 (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It did not.--Milowent (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIS ARTICLE IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT AND HIHGLY BIASED 

message: It only became “fictional” after she realized that that was her only way to get out of the mess, and not be seen as a total nutjob. (Which she still is, btw.)
I know, because I know her personally.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.192.146 (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just so you know: It was NOT entirely fictional! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lonelygirl15. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061016095426/http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-lonelygirl8sep08,0,5310001.story to http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-lonelygirl8sep08,0,5310001.story
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lonelygirl15. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080629141213/http://www.lonelygirl15.com:80/forum/index.php?c=11 to http://www.lonelygirl15.com/forum/index.php?c=11
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070407162337/http://www.cnn.com:80/2007/TECH/internet/03/26/youtube.awards.ap/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/03/26/youtube.awards.ap/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lonelygirl15. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080102041210/http://www.latimes.com:80/entertainment/news/la-me-lonelygirl13sep13,1,3672640.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews&track=crosspromo to http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-me-lonelygirl13sep13,1,3672640.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews&track=crosspromo
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Quote from the article: DO NO CHANGE IS TO WAS. FICTION CONTINUES TO EXIST, EVEN IF PRODUCTION OF NEW VIDEOS FOR A SERIES ENDS
The series has ended, so it should be in the past tense to suggest that the series isn't ongoing. This is in contrast to non-serialized works of art, where the present tense may be appropriate. Maikel (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Is or was

message: Was this an invention of the series? What did this term actually mean or encompass? Maikel (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Trait positive