Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Brett

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, per Rebecca. The notability of this person is borderline. Normally, in a borderline case I would favor keeping the hard work of those who wrote the article but in this case, when the subject has requested its deletion, I really don't think we have a choice, and must delete. Mangojuice^talk 15:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samantha Brett

NN. Clear failure of WP:BIO – the subject has written one book which is not particularly successful and has blogs (but does not write print articles) for two Australian newspapers. mgekelly 05:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 08:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Dennette 09:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Rebecca 10:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per previous discussion. Author of independently reviewed book. Capitalistroadster 02:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the previous discussion was inconclusive, and did not result in a keep. Moreover, WP:BIO doesn't simply say a book must be 'independently reviewed', but stipulates 'multiple independent reviews' – does Luv'n'txt have such? Links? mgekelly 05:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • For the record, there have also been ongoing WP:BLP issues with this article, requiring it to be semiprotected twice before, and if I recall rightly, the author herself once requested the article be deleted. I really see no benefit in keeping this around. Rebecca 06:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable as either an author, blogger or journalist. Just not enough of an impact and only one relatively unknown book. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - 'Sam and the City' is a well-known part of the Sydney Morning Herald website. It's there every weekday and gets hundreds of contributions - it's not an independent blog but part of the Herald's website. I don't think lack of writing for print media should be something that excludes people - if you write for online media and work for a notable enough source then surely that should establish some sort of notability? There are a lot of SMH journos and contributors that have WP entries - why can't she? (JROBBO 05:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
  • I have a suggestion - why not merge something on "Sam and the City" into the SMH article as part of its online content? (JROBBO 05:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
    • I would suggest that Sam and the City fails WP:WEB and is therefore itself NN. mgekelly 07:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You suggest wrong. The third criterion of that site states that if "the content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster", then it is notable. This is the case, as the Herald is a well-known online newspaper, etc. (JROBBO 05:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
        • No, you are wrong. The very criterion you quote says that to meet WP:WEB the website in question must be distributed on a well known website independent of the creators. smh.com.au is well known, but not independent of Sam and the City, which is part of Farifax's blog stable, created specfically for the smh and Age websites. The smh website is notable, Sam and the City is not. mgekelly 06:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Undoubtedly she's written a fair bit, both on her SMH blog and elsewhere on the web. Writing stuff doesn't make you notable though - notability comes when other people write about you. A look over her website reveals multiple independant reviews of her book (by both Fairfax and News Ltd papers, and other media), which seems to fit the bill of "other people writing about you". The references in the article could be cleaned up though. -- Mako 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete In addition to the above comments by mgekelly, the article is basically a reproduction of publicity material and adds no critique or outside information to its substance. --Adamnb 20:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• KeepDankru 12:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Mukadderat 18:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? (JROBBO 04:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Because the claim to notability is borderline at best and there are ongoing BLP issues. There is very little to be gained from keeping this article around. Rebecca 06:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please DUA (don't use acronyms). What is BLP? And what about my merge suggestion? (JROBBO 08:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

BLP stands for biographies of living persons. People keep vandalising this article for some reason, and I know for a fact that it has caused the subject of the article distress. With such a borderline claim to notability, this for me throws it right over the edge into deletion territory. Rebecca 13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep DXRAW 07:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. More notable than the average writer/blogger. Zaxem 06:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blog cruft. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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.