Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brianna Taylor

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Taylor[edit]

Brianna Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article provides no sources that establishes notability according to any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Unless such sources can be provided, the article should be deleted. Nightscream (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NOTABLE and is lacking in sources Yamakiri TC § 07-3-2008 • 00:29:09 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article now meets my quality and sourcing standards, and asserts its notability. Yamakiri TC § 07-4-2008 • 04:12:21
Nothing in the deletion guidelines requires the nominator to search for sources. That's the responsibility of the article's creator. In any event, appearing on American Idol does not impart notability (unless the person makes it to the final rounds), nor does appearing on The Real World, as there are dozens of such people on that show who do not merit their own articles. Nightscream (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not all those appearing on The Real World have multiple newspaper articles about them, as does Taylor. As to the collaborative aspects of searching for sources, Wikipedia:Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines describes steps to take prior to deletion, including look for sources yourself. And Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination says: first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of reality show alumni appear in local newspaper and magazine articles, and a lot of them have "legal troubles". This does not make them notable. The entire cast of Survivor 2: The Australian Outback appeared in their own special issue of People magazine, a national magazine with a far greater readership than The Philadelphia Enquirer or Beaver County Times, and it was decided that they do not each merit an article and having "legal troubles" doesn't change that. It is for this reason looking for sources was not my obligation: The policies you cite only pertain to whether notability could be established. But since the only criteria for her notability that is being claimed by advocates of her article is A. Appearing on a reality show, and B. Having legal troubles, then my looking for sources is unnecessary. Otherwise, you might as well make an article for every suspect who's ever appeared on Cops, since they qualify under the exact same criteria. Nightscream (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Articles in Category:X have been deleted, so this one should be too" is generally considered an argument to avoid in deletion discussions—for the reasons noted at WP:ALLORNOTHING. I am not arguing that all the cast of Survivor 2 ought to have articles. Furthermore, you seem to be misreading the standards laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (people): all that's required is the "basic criteria", not "the basic criteria plus something from the 'additional criteria' list". If the articles were all related to her being on one reality show, then the verifiable content could be merged into, say, the article on The Real World. But the article's topics are more varied than that—you may have missed the edit summary here (by thedemonhog), which mentions "A" and "B" but also "C" and "D" (her music career). Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make an AllORNOTHING argument, since I never said anything about articles in another category. My statement was in response to your argument about her being in a reality show and having legal troubles, and was that those criteria do not convey notability. The example I used was meant to convey that point, and was valid as a line of counterargument. It was not an appeal to similarities about "categories". Nothing on the Notability page you linked to says that Basic Criteria is "all that's required". Being the subject of published, secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject is necessary, but it does not, in and of itself, establish why the person is notable. As for her music career, I checked out the Intro. The first source is a dead link. The second one, The Philadelphia Daily News, aside from not being a nationally known periodical, is not an online source, so I can't currently verify its contents. The third one is a brief article in something called Beyond Race magazine, which I've never heard of. Is this really sufficient to establish her as noteworthy for her music?
I apologize for suggesting that you made an "all-or-nothing" argument. I thought you were saying that because other reality show participants' articles were deleted in AfDs, this one should be too. Now, it appears that you and I have a very different understanding of WP:N. The way that guideline evolved was in the spirit of establishing a neutral way of determining if an article is notable, taking our personal judgments of notability out of the picture as much as possible. That neutral way is to look to see if "the world has taken note": sufficient coverage in independent sources. (Plus, of course, not violating some other guideline or policy such as WP:NOT.) That's it. That's all I'm arguing here. I'm not arguing that she is notable because she is on TV. I'm not arguing that she is notable because she had legal problems. I'm not arguing she is notable because of her music career. I'm arguing she is notable because "the world" has taken note of her: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. (There are currently nine newspaper or magazine articles referenced, all of them non-trivial mentions of her, some of them exclusively about her.) That's WP:N. That's WP:BIO#Basic criteria. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Continuing the exchange, I would question how exactly the "world" has taken notice of her, when none of the publications that have written about her are "global", or even "national". Nightscream (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The world" is shorthand for "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There have been AfDs in which editors have argued that "local" notability does not count, but there's nothing in the guidelines that says that is the case. There do not have to be articles in, say, the New Straits Times, especially when there are high-quality local papers such as The Philadelphia Inquirer sourced here. Besides, Beyond Race and Newsday are beyond the Philadelphia and Bucks County areas, so the "notice" is not purely in media of towns in which Taylor has lived. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No 44 in Americna Idol is not notability. The various events in Philadelphia are quite possibly BLP violationsDGG (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, as the references provided in Brianna_Taylor#References indicate sufficient coverage of Brianna Taylor in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of her notability per the general notability guideline. John254 19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as "she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (WP:BIO). –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - she has two things going for her, both Idol and the Real World, and those combining up gets her to warranting an article IMO even though neither does on their own. She has considerable media mention as well. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brianna_Taylor&oldid=1144837767"