Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Brick

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 delete. The Keep rationales are not convincing - "4500 viewed this page" - "I can't think of a reason to delete it" - etc. Frankly, I suspect that given the ridicule that Brick has received over her article, deletion may well be the route of least embarrassment for her. Having said that, I'm guessing that if anyone wants to create a redirect to Daily Mail, that would not be unreasonable either. Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Brick[edit]

Samantha Brick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A clear case of WP:BLP1E, being a non-notable writer who is currently in the media focus due to a single event. Not notable in and of herself. Also, largely unsourced other than thru this one incident. Also, see WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER- Alison ❤ 23:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - She's clearly in the news lately and notable for recentism, whether or not that lasts or not i don't know and so i support a delete. If she's still being talked about next year then we may have reason for an article. Otherwise just stick this paragraph in the Daily Mail article. Thanks Jenova20 00:06, 9 April 2012
  • Keep 4,500 viewed this page in a single day according to the viewing stats. If people come to Wikipedia looking for info why are we trying to delete it? Quickbeam44 (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. blp1e. --JN466 02:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect to the Daily Mail. I'm sure Mrs. Brick would say that we're all jealous people because she's so lovely (and she is quite lovely), but the fact remains that there isn't a depth of coverage about her. All of the articles about her have been recent and so far this appears to be a clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. There's no way of knowing that she won't remain in the public eye, but there's no way of guaranteeing that she will. If someone wants to userfy this in the chance that she will get lasting coverage, then I have no problems with that, but she just doesn't meet notability guidelines at this time. As far as people accessing the page, we don't keep articles because WP:ITSUSEFUL or just because a person is popular in the here and now. Articles must be properly sourced and meet notability guidelines, which Brick doesn't at this point in time. She's only known for one event and that event in itself doesn't show any lasting notability at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with this being a redirect to the Daily Mail, with her being a brief mention in that article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the internet does I'm not even slightly doubtful we will see the article in witch Samantha was mentioned pop up and spike in popularity a number of times. It will get more than one exposure. Also this Wikipedia has already gotten a number of views. If people are looking than the article has use.
  • The only problem with that is that we don't keep articles simply because it's useful or because it gets views. That's not how Wikipedia works. We also can't keep an article because someone thinks that Brick will be mentioned in the future or that she'll receive more notability. That's called crystal balling and is not a reason for keeping an article. We need to show that she's notable in the here and now per Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest and while it can be useful, we're not an indiscriminate collection of every random event and person that has, does, or will exist. You have to show that Brick passes WP:BIO if you want to keep the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable.--Smerus (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. She was notable before the Daily Mail article, the article is not notable and the event is not notable. Bgwhite (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteFor the time being, this appears to be a case of flash-in-the-pan "fame". I think the page should be deleted for the same reason most memes don't warrant their own page. That being said, if she returns to the spotlight, you might want to merge this content w/ additional information found in the future.JoelWhy (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This AfD proposal has clearly been orchestrated by women who are bitter that they're not beautiful enough to merit a Wikipedia article. She has pointed out that 100% of men find her attractive, undoubtedly making her the most famous person in the world. AdamSommerton (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in spite of WP:Other stuff exists for one set of debate arguments, and because of WP:Other stuff exists for another such set. Both sets will get a fair airing as the discussion proceeds, but suffice it to say that the subject, at age 41, is not a novice at being in the news, both in writing and being written about. Her website, http://www.samanthabrick.com/ details sufficient writing and TV producing credits to make her notable without the burden of this somewhat demeaning and disparaging publicity that diminishes what appears to be a fairly notable career which, by all appearances, seems certainly deserving of a Wikipedia biographical entry on its own merits.—Roman Spinner (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She is clearly not notable in her own right as a journalist under the standard criteria. She's a freelance writer who appears to write very occasionally for the Mail, as well as for other places presumably. Of course she's done stuff professionally, and her website will try to make the most of that - but her notability, such as it is, is clearly down to this one-off article and the resultant brief kerfuffle over it, which is not enough. This event should be mentioned in the Mail article (the fuss in reality is more about the paper and its bid to grab attention). N-HH talk/edits 11:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is a journalist at a major newspaper who has been found in the public spotlight recently. Cannot think of a single reason to delete and to not keep. Martyn Smith (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not anything like consensus on deletion here. Is this not enough to bring the debate to a close and keep the article (with deletion heading removed)? Martyn Smith (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, she does not appear to be a staff journalist. She's a freelancer whose work is very occasionally published in the paper or its website (a few times a year by the look of this archive, mostly fluffy lifestyle or "look at me" pieces, which the Mail regularly commissions as one-off or occasional items from random individuals). There are thousands and thousands of occasionally published freelance writers, but most do not get their own WP biog, per our notability standards at WP:AUTHOR and also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The only question is whether this one furore raises her above that bar, and, again, there's policy on that - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ONEEVENT. Also of course, deletion debates aren't generally decided on unanimity, or on the basis that one or two people - or even a majority - have "voted" for a keep, hence it's concluded there's no consensus to delete; it's about policy and weight of argument. If she establishes a reputation and notability above and beyond this one passing frenzy, that's another thing, but there's no real evidence for that yet. N-HH talk/edits 15:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alison. The serious Keep arguments are doubtless well intentioned, but unpersuasive. Google hits is not our criteria for inclusion. And Roman Spinner's argument could be valid if there are nontrivial secondary sources focusing on her career beyond this one event, but so far those dots have not been connected here. We have a specific definition for what is meant by "notable", not only the colloquial "deserving of note". Martinp (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Andy Warhol once said that in the future we'd all be famous for fifteen minutes, and this is her [Samantha Brick's] moment in the spotlight. But the seconds are ticking away fast. So she wrote an article about her looks and suddenly she became public enemy number one. Maybe we could mention her in the context of media frenzy or some such similar article, but until she does something more significant on her own she doesn't stand up to the notability test. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect on second thoughts to something like Daily Mail, and still for the same reason, WP:ONEEVENT. The event itself is notable enough to be mentioned in the Daily Mail article, particularly as the Mail attracted criticism from a journalist at another newspaper over issues relating to this event. A slimmed down version of the text could be included in that article, and Samantha Brick could safely be redirected there. I've taken a copy of this for now as I might work on it at a point in the future when this article may not be around, and it would be useful to have this material to hand. But really this is something that should have been added to the appropriate article to begin with because this subject is far too trivial for a standalone page. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • ok, as someone had already mentioned it in the article, I've merged the Samantha Brick text into a Criticism section, so this page could safely be redirected now as the section contains all the relevant facts. I suspect there is a more appropriate place, but the important thing is I've factored it in. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Daily_mail#Criticism_of_the_Mail.27s_treatment_of_female_employees seems the most appropriate solution given the WP:1E nature of the article. --sparkl!sm hey! 10:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Daily Mail or somewhere similar, notable only for writing one stupid article. PatGallacher (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the Daily mail article. She's only notable for this one aticle.TheLongTone (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. I am opposed to a merge to Daily Mail#Criticism of the Mail's treatment of female employees, and in fact I shall suggest on the talk page of that article removal of the paragraph there, because that is (a) also a WP:NOTNEWS item of no serious or lasting significance, and (b) nothing to do with the Mail's treatment its employees. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2012 (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/Samantha_Brick&oldid=1138336078"