Talk:Amanda Congdon

Prologue

The inclusion of this person is highly questionable to begin with, but assuming she meets some kind of cutoff for minor celebrity, the content is clearly dumped from a PR bio. It seems especially likely that the only two people who have ever seen this page are Amanda Congdon and myself, but presuming anyone else ever finds it, they might want a more neutral analysis of her talents, which I cannot provide, because I, like the rest of the Western world, have never heard of her. Junkmale 15:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that Amanda Congdon will remain hidden (online) for long. LoopZilla 23:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

She's far from questionable for inclusion. Just cause you haven't heard of her.... --John Kenneth Fisher 23:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and everyone you have heard of automatically merits inclusion? This is a vanity article and shameless self-promotion that needs to be flagged for deletion immediately. Some fired blogger nobody outside a tiny coterie of geeks has ever heard of does not merit inclusion in a global encyclopedia. -- Rhodomontade 21:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Almost 400,000 daily viewers and $80,000 per week in advertising revenue. Lengthy stories and interviews on CBS, CNN, ABC, NPR, Wired, Newsweek, the Associated Press, (and others), and nearly all of these sources say (in one way or another) that Rocketboom has starting the "vlog revolution" because of Amanda's quirky sense of humor that appeals to the (stereotypically) net-savvy (and, of course, for creating a viable, self-sustaining business model in an innovative way). The interweb is a big place, Rhodomontade. You haven't heard of everyone. Furthermore, if we look at Wikipedia's policy on vanity... "Lack of fame is not the same as vanity," so even though you haven't heard of her (before now), there are other things we must weigh in deciding whether or not this article is truly vanity. If you read further, you can see that vanity would apply if Amanda were not noteworthy (this is clearly not the case; the article is fully cited and well researched), or if Amanda wrote the article herself for (shameless) self-promotion (which is not the case). --Ryan! 18:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The ex-host of an "on hiatus" buzzsite is not worthy of an encyclopedia entry, your vehement screaming and fist-pounding fanboyism not withstanding. I doubt those viewer numbers, the site doesn't even register in rankings, this "vlog" is being promoted "virally" by some online PR firm clogging up Digg.com, Wiki, etc., with "buzz" about this non-show. Of course old media is going to fall for it. Big deal. --Rhodomontade 18:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Clear logic and reason is reduced to "vehement screaming and fist-pounding fanboyism." I can't understand why you would think that...unless, of course, you must resort to ad hominem attacks in order to defend your own position. You claimed this article violates Wikipedia's vanity policy, and now abandon that argument to do what? It looks to me like you're claiming, without any sources whatsoever, that a small two-person operation somehow "pulled a fast one" on "old media" (because Rolling Stone is as old as they come, right?). The thrust of your argument seems to be that she doesn't deserve inclusion because you, Rhodomontade, have not heard of her. But why get so upset that there might be things on the internet that are extremely popular (more popular than, say, the average cable TV show) that you have not yet heard about yet? I ask you, then, does everything you haven't heard of automatically merit exclusion?--Ryan! 03:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Look up "slow scan tv". She's hardly the first person to broadcast their insanity over public mediums... This is nothing more than a lame vanity page. She's 25 for crying out loud and runs a blog. Big deal. There are much younger people doing much more incredible things. Delbleated this page and move on to more interesting and insightful people!

Well, now since she is getting a TV show y'all can stop arguing TrevorLSciAct 00:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed

Okay, I added two lead paragraphs to establish the significance of the subject and deleted some phrases elsewhere. "PR bio"? Five people worked on this, and my contribution involved research through dozens of sources. Pepso 18:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done and I'm sorry for being obnoxious -- I've become hypersensitive to bias (positive or negative) in recent weeks and I mistook genuine affection for a ginned-up attempt to pervert the entry. I'm glad to see the facts of her work speak for themselves. Junkmale 22:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• • However it still seems like a puff piece mainly. 128.175.205.52 01:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

IMDB

See IMDB entry

Google hits

49,300 hits for "Amanda Congdon" on Google LoopZilla 23:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Last time I checked (30 seconds ago), she only has around 11,000 hits on Google. However I suppose it's fine that she has an entry, and it doesn't seem too much like shameless PR. Secretagentwang 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Using Google Advanced Search "exact phrase," I got 73,900 results. Pepso 23:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

i'm sorry, but shes not funny in a good way. shes thinks shes funny, but her jokes are stupid. she is a failure in life.

plus, she totally thinks shes like some kind of super celebrity. shes not

214,000 hits for "Amanda Congdon" (exact phrase) today and 1,550,000 for rocketboom Gordo 07:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My name in Google gets 20,000 hits Gordo 07:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

she now has 336,000 hits.TrevorLSciAct 20:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Coat check girl

OK, hold it just a minute. You are upsetting the balance of the universe. They use paid actors on Reality TV? What?!? I mean come on! Maybe she was the coat check girl on The Restaurant but surely that must have been because she really is a coat check girl and happened to be working at "Rocco's on 22nd" while they filmed a program there.--69.118.202.131 23:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• It is my understanding that paid actors are used _constantly_ on so-called "reality" TV. 128.175.205.52 01:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Rocketboom

I think that too much info is repeated with the amanda section in Rocketboom and this article. --TrevorLSciAct 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case edit the Rocketboom article!! Gordo 07:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is STILL the case. Does anyone have time to merge some of the Rocketboom info over to its' appropriate page? Species5618 (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Merge

The effort to merge is the last gasp of those who have tried to delete Gordo 07:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. All duplication in Congdon page and RB page has been eliminated. Pepso 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge, it appears that Amanda Congdon and rocketboom have parted ways: www.mediaweek.com.Woden325 16:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly hence.... "the question is not put" !!!! Gordo 13:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Switch images

I'm switching the images so the candid is on the bottom--I don't know why I'm bothering to mention it here? There should be no objections. --TrevorLSciAct 20:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not objecting, but why did you switch? Pepso 22:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I just thought that a posed shot makes the page look more professional (not the word I'm looking for but close) --TrevorLSciAct 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Image

With all the availablity of this persons image on the internet - video logs, etc. we should be able to get a PD (or at least GFDL) image that is of better quality - the lighting in the current picture is aweful. --Trödel 19:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the image that used to be there was deleted. Will revert. —Rob (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow that is a much better picture - I wouldn't even have thought it was the same person --Trödel 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is better... it is definitely pulled off her website... someone that know FairUse better than I needs to make sure that image is okay being up there, though. —Rob (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris Weaver, of http://www.TVPhotogBlog.com has kindly granted wikipedia a Cc-by-sa license to 3 of the photos he had of Congdon - I used them in the article. The picture in the infobox is a cropped version of Image:Congdon-2.PNG (Congdon with Weaver) but I don't have the skills or software to soften the pixalated look it has. Any help would be appreciated. However, I think the fair use would be fine since the use on Congdon's website is for promotional purposes, if we want to go back to that image. --Trödel 11:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fairly obvious. :-) It's because the template resizes your image to 250px or so... which is bigger than the image you uploaded, causing pixelization, which looks bad. I'll replace just that image with the image that was in the infobox prior. —Rob (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris Weaver images

They can be in the regular page, but something, somewhere needs to mention this conference, and what it was, and why she was there (or even just that she was there), before putting a pic in the body. —Rob (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL - well I have no idea about any of that - I just found the pics after my complaint above - and asked Chris for permission to use them since they were fairly good quality (as determined by size and having decent lighting). --Trödel 20:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

New Infobox image

I emailed Congdon and asked if she could license a picture for use on wikipedia. She kindly agreed - and I hav uploaded the image to commons and included in the infobox. --Trödel 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Amanda's next project? section

I'm a new user so I don't want to start cutting things out by mysef but I don't believe that a section on speculation about amanda's next project belongs in an encyclopedia article. This is not a gossip magazine but a source of information. Wikipedia is not People's magazine. If your really desperate, than put your speculation on the talk page. When it's been clarified what Amanda's next move is, than that should been incorporated into the article with a link in the reference section. Certainly not its own section on the page. This is making a major joke out of the whole Wikipedia. --John Do 13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

AmandaAcrossAmerica

Someone should add information about http://amandacongdon.com/roadblog/, I would but I don't have away with words as you can see!

Done, although it could use some improvement and someone with a little knowledge on pictures should add some for that section. TrevorLSciAct 00:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess this was an automatic message. Considering that Amanda was a video blogger, having YOUTube links makes sense :) --Tilman 07:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it shouldn't be a youtube link, since the YouTube version is just a copy of the original hosted on the Rocketboom site. I've updated the link so it points to the original, since technically the YouTube one is a violation of Rocketboom's copyright. It seems to me that any external link to a video should strive to link to the original source rather than copies floating around youtube. Acarvin 13:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for checking it. ---J.S (t|c) 22:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Tilman 16:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

HBO

Just wanted to say I am going to add info that she has struck deals with both HBO and ABC [1] (and I am so happy for her--but thats off topic.) But also, in general, it seems that this article has lost some of the attention it once had, what changed?TrevorLSciAct 03:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned Up

I just did allot of clean up and rewording, and some slight reorganizing, hope y'all like the updated article--if ya don't complain here. Also just wanted to say how great this wiki thing works, and congratulate everyone who has worked on the article and how far it has come since I suggested it be merged into Rocketboom Looking back is just.. WOW TrevorLSciAct 02:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Some Information to Rocketboom

I just did a lot more clean up and feel that MUCH of the Rocketboom information should be moved to the Rocketboom page. This biography doesn't need such in-detail information about Rocketboom, that information would be more appropriate on the Rocketboom page. Species5618 (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What's with the reformatting?

before the article appeared manageable, readable, and allowed you to easily skip tot he part you want, now it's just one big block of text, it looks very intimidating, and I'm gonna change it back to the much more readable style. TrevorLSciAct (talk)

Just changed the formating back to a good format that can be read. TrevorLSciAct (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fluff Article

It doesn't bother me that Amanda Congdon's entry is full of fluff and does not mention the controversy of her becoming fired from ABC, not getting her HBO contract, losing the court case with Rocketboom, or the major controversy over her Dupont infomercials, but I also believe a great deal of the information in the Rocketboom entry has been usurped into her personal entry and that info would better enhance the Rocketboom entry.

However, I'm not going to touch her article myself because I dont want everyone to freak out and start pointing fingers again. Else, I would only like to point out a few articles that others have written in case anyone is interested in the non-fluff history, as it relates to Rocketboom. Also, I would like to ask that someone else consider moving data to Rocketboom (like the EPic-Fu data which was motivated by myself and *included* Amanda, but was related to the deal I worked out with Epic-Fu, where Rocketboom owned 50% of the show at one time.) Hey, I'm just trying to include the truth here, lets not expect that the following info should be hidden when we expect integrity:

+Former Rocketboomer Shills for Dupont

http://adage.com/adages/post?article_id=115644

+ABC Videocaster Congdon Caught Working for Dupont on the Side:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/03/20/abc-videocaster-congdon-c_n_43867.html

+Amanda's Been Canned From ABC

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/09/21/abc-amandas-been-canned

+Internet Celebrity Doesnt Translate: Amanda Congdon Let Go By ABC

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/09/21/internet-celebrity-doesnt-translate-amanda-congdon-let-go-by-abc/

+Amanda Congdon's crossover dreams fade

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9783641-7.html?tag=nefd.only

Andrewbaron, could you please sign your comments? The only verifiable fact from the ABC departure is that the one year contract was not renewed. It is so far opinion as to why this is so, at least until someone presents the network memo or similar source detailing the decision. There were at least three different ways that ABCNEWS tried to stream the videoblog through, none of them quite satisfactory, as can be pointed out by her comments on a couple of the blogs, and how one week never made it to air. The DuPont controversy does deserve mention; although she denied being a journalist, she otherwise comes across as one. Such mention would probably also have to deal with CBS and FRONTLINE references to Amanda-era Rocketboom. The Rocketboom court case should be public record, so a detailed reference that would give someone else the ability to independently access the same part of the record referred to should suffice, although the case is also fair game as a source for any criticism of Rocketboom. That may dissuade you, but I think THAT source would contribute the most to the Rocketboom, AC, and any other WikiP article involved. As always, WP:BLP for all parties should be adhered. This is not a forum for personal attack, but when cited, your criticism carries the same weight as any other contributor's. Ultimately, the article should be neutral, leaving the reader to weigh the evidence as they see fit.

MMetro (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

Please see weasel like examples. Unless there are objections the below can be deleted to increase the credibility of the article. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"she is probably best known" - by who? Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"She is still" - similir to "currently". "As of (date)" would improve the statement. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"but a controversial dispute" - who says it is controversial? Simple dispute might be better. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"and others" - who are they? If can't support, it would be better to drop and leave no doubt. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"In some episodes" - that could be two, twenty, or more episode. Giving the exact number or eliminating it would be better. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"that many viewers visited " - what is many? Better to give the exact number or eliminate the phrase. Pknkly (talk)

"Many messages remarked on her physical.." - What is many? Better to simply drop the word. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"posted occasionally" - What is the frequency or number for occasionally. Don't think "occasionally" is needed and the sentence would be fine without it. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"is now reportedly" and "nd will reportedly be a comedy" - by whom? It would be better to simply say Reported by ____. As it is, if I correctly followed the reference, the "reported by" is web site on Amanda which may not be a good source (see Online self published sources. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"occasionally appears on shows " - How many is "occasionally". Simply state how many times or use "appeared on". Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"is currently appearing in a series " - giving a "as of date" is better. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"it was announced September 21st, 2007" - Who announced it? Citation would support. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Currently, Congdon is " - "As of date" statement would be better. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up all of these. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Peacock words

Please see examples of peacock terms. The sentences would do just as well without them. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"often with a comedic slant" -- who says? Just leave it as a fact "she gave her own reports". Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"One memorable episode" - who says its memorable and what makes it memorable? "An episode" is sufficient. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"allowed her to display her abilities as a monologist" - - Don't see the need for this. Restructure the sentence to get to the point of the sentence without commenting on her abilities. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed or edited all of these. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability

I see this article is tagged as being of questionable notability. I've seen and worked on other articles in Wikipedia that are not nearly as notable as this person. I ended up on this page because of a news show on Current TV that did a short piece on Rocketboom and Ms. Congdon. I would say that she's notable enough to have a bio. Just my 2 cents. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah. Her fifteen minutes were up many years ago. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:7D:E04A:FB7C:F8E0:3C69 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)