Talk:Donna Simpson (internet celebrity)

This article was nominated for deletion on May 22, 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

A fact from Donna Simpson (internet celebrity) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 June 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Donna Simpson maintains a website where male fans pay to watch videos of her eating and measuring her waistline? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/June.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. New Jersey Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Health and fitness Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is not an attack page. Donna Simpson and her desire to become the world's heaviest woman have been well-documented in many sources, and it's something she's proud of. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: User: Anowlin posted a level 4im vandalism warning on my talk page, falsely accusing me of "vandalism". That could in itself be considered a personal attack; at the very least, it was a bad mistake, as this page was in no way vandalism. So I removed the vandalism warning template; please do not repost it. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not an attack page, should still qualify under A7. --ANowlin: talk 17:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, if you look at the categories selected, "fat fetishism" just reinforces my original decision to mark this as an attack page. Regardless, the page either qualifies for CSD as marked, or under A7.--ANowlin: talk 17:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources mention that Donna Simpson makes money off guys who pay to watch videos of her eating and measuring her waistline. Thus the category was only added because of the sources.Stonemason89 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Norma Stitz and Chelsea Charms articles include "Breast Fetishism" as a category; no "attack" or derogatory statement implied. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's definitely notable. I was listening to KSTP-FM the other day and the radio DJ's were interviewing her; she's been doing a national radio tour. So A7 won't work either. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll leave this for an admin. I don't see how someone who is fat and only wants to be fatter qualifies for inclusion. --ANowlin: talk 17:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, she's received quite a bit of coverage in many sources, so I don't see how she could not be considered notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this is for an administrator to decide. If they rule its not CSDable, then all they have to do is click "undo" where I added the CSD tag. What I saw, and my initial reaction was: "attack" page, based on the title and contents. If it weren't for the "(Obese)" in the title, I probably never would have pulled it up. The category which was added could be considered rude. While I do see your justification of her "notability," I don't think it meets Wikipedia's definition of "notability." --ANowlin: talk 17:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the "obese" in the title was because it's why she's famous; also, the Donna Simpson page already exists and is about an Australian musician. I racked my brains and honestly couldn't think of any better title. If you can think of a better title, why not move the article there instead of slapping a CSD on it and then falsely accusing me of vandalism, adding unjustified 4im template, etc? Stonemason89 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that not EVERY "notable" person should be on Wikipedia. How are you NOT contributing to the obesity epidemic by allowing this person to be someone worthy of note on Wikipedia? This is just ridiculous. Just because someone is in the news, they are now notable? I don't care how many sources you have, this person is only notable for an eating disorder, and offers nothing positive to any community except fetishists, and I fail to understand how fetishes have come to be standard fare for choosing who in the world is notable anymore. If that is the standard, then all the people who work in real jobs, who have real accomplishments, but who are lesser known, who have asked me for assistance getting Wikipedia entries, and to whom I have said, "No, I'm sorry, but you are not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia entry," have just as much a right to be here. Her presence here just makes Wikipedia a bigger joke than it already is. Kelelain (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that you read WP:BIO and WP:RS. If you still think the article should be deleted, please initiate an Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user added some snarky comments to the article such as "The procedure lasted three days due to difficulty finding the womb" and "...the hornier I get", etc. These comments went uncaught for quite a while, but now I've removed them (I had to do so manually due to the large number of intermediate edits). Stonemason89 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article received 6,200 views while on the Main Page, thus making it eligible for DYKSTATS. See [1]. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this on wikipedia? It's pretty much an advertisement, it has utterly no importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.77.26 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In March 2011 she launched a website[14]... As of 2008, she had 260 subscribers"

My powers of deduction tell me one of these is wrong. Can't see a launch date on her website though. BulbaThor (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<smiling> Your powers of deduction are right. I fixed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Simpson would appear to have changed her stance since most of the references in this article. Can we get her new position on each from the blog on her website? --gmip 58.106.67.247 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page is not needed. 174.22.202.223 (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sarah Austin (Internet personality) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we can calculate the amount of food she needlessly consumes and quantify it another way? For example, could someone calculate it and demonstrate that the amount of food, which she didn't need that week, could've provided 30 underpriviledged kids with their 21 meals for that particular week? It's probably an original research thing yes, but if this woman of all people is notable, then surely the gluttony in which she engages every waking moment of her disgusting life should be quantified: not just to say how much food she ate, but how many people that food COULD HAVE fed.Hommedepommes (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Donna Simpson (internet celebrity). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100322221534/http://wcbstv.com:80/topstories/donna.simpson.1000.2.1570361.html to http://wcbstv.com/topstories/donna.simpson.1000.2.1570361.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Donna Simpson which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]