Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Brosmer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. ^King Jakob _C2 11:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

Betty Brosmer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Joe Weider. Brosmer co-authored two fitness books with her husband Weider, an industry pioneer, but the media credits her with little else. Her article's other claims are dubious and sourced solely to a self-promotional website and books authored by in-laws. For example, she is credited with co-founding Shape and the International Federation of Bodybuilders, but Weider's numerous recent obituaries only credit Weider (and his brother) for this; Brosmer is generally mentioned in passing as a former model he married. Coverage dedicated solely to her is lacking, and what there is to say about her is covered succinctly in her husband's article. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 20:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My first reaction was that this would be a "Delete" but then I looked at www.bettybrosmer.com, which is actually a fansite rather than a personal site, and I have to say - she obviously had a massive amount of exposure and publicity in her day. Scanning through the magazine cover gallery, there are several references to articles within the magazines on her, so she wasn't just a cover girl, but someone with articles on her. Being on so many magazine covers (often as the sole cover star) in the 1950s/60s, means that she was obviously very well known at the time and widely recognised. Publication wise, I see a Spanish book about the history of obscenity calling her the definitive 50s pin-up, and a few other mentions, but not many. Because she was big in the 1950s and 60s, and the publications that would have covered her aren't the type of publications that would be a priority for digitising, most of the sources/notability material is not readily available. There looks to be quite a bit about her in the Newspaperarchive (subscription required to read articles, which I don't have, but I can search and see results.) from the 1950s onwards. I'm going to say that the sheer volume of exposure and magazine space that she demonstrably received, in a very definitely pre-Internet age, is evidence of notability. Mabalu (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say, however - "the first supermodel"? Oy. Unsourced claims like that need to be killed with fire - just how many claimed "first supermodels" are out there, anyway? Mabalu (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that Brosmer had success as a model, but I feel it's problematic to justify an article using cover scans on a fansite and an online newspaper archive neither of us can access because 1) we have to infer a level of significance on our own for the former, and 2) we have no idea what's actually in the archive (are the hits for full articles, passing mentions, or just photo captions?) and we can't source anything from it. Can we justify a stand-alone article with questionable claims with these - and one sentence in the history of obscenity book - as our independent sourcing? In sourcing articles on prominent '50s pin-up girls like Bettie Page, we don't come even close to having this kind of sourcing problem. If Brosmer was on Page's level - and Brosmer's article certainly suggests she was - I see no reason to think we wouldn't easily find similar coverage. What we can independently source for Brosmer will leave the article a two-sentence stub. I still feel the redirect is appropriate without better sourcing. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bettie Page was not a simple pin-up like Brosmer, but had a more specialized niche. This has apparently given her a cult-following which has lasted into the internet age, but says nothing about which of the two was more widely known during the 1950's... AnonMoos (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- In the 1950's, she was a very noted "pin-up" girl, who was as famous as many well-known actresses (at least in the United States). AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's debatable. There are a decent amount of 1950s newspapers from the United States available on Google News. How does the amount of Brosmer's coverage in those newspapers compare to that of "well-known actresses"? Not very well, it looks like. I realize that lots of sources are not available free online, and Brosmer may still be notable even if she was less famous than well-known actresses. Nevertheless, the number of sources we can find free online doesn't appear to support the idea that Brosmer was very famous. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly significant as co-author of pioneer books about bodybuilding. More serious references need to be added, however.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.