Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Brodack (3rd nomination)

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. Clearly notable; nomination based on the false assumption of temporary notability. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Brodack[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Procedural nomination - User:TomMayhew attempted to start an AfD but did not create the discussion page, transclude it to the log page or notify the creator. This is the comment the user left in the edit summary: "At one point, she had a degree of notability. But, having deleted all of her social media channels, it seems absurd her having a Wikipedia page when she only has 500 subscribers, and didn't have any real crossover success." Note that I, SK2242, have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted. Pinging @TomMayhew:. In future you may want to use Twinkle to nominate AfDs correctly. SK2242 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary. There was adequate coverage to build an article based on 2006 coverage alone. She was covered on a page in a book by a suitable publisher in 2008. Notability sufficient for an article has been established. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced, notability established at the time of creation of the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Well sourced"? The vast majority of her references are deadlinks - only 2 of them actually link to an article about her, and one of those is archived. Some references link to domains that no longer exist, while others link to deleted YouTube videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomMayhew (talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links do not invalidate sources: run the Internet Archive bot on them, there is a link at the top of the page history. SK2242 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When conducting a BEFORE search using the Internet Archive, there is suitable evidence to pass the notability guideline at the time of the article creation, meaning the subject received SIGCOV in reliable sources over an extended period of time. As notability is not temporary the article should remain regardless of the current status of the subject. May be written, may to be brought up for AfD, should to be kept. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:58, 11 January 2021 (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.