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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samantha Brett

Advertisement for non-notable book, non-notable author. Claims to have invented ROTFL acronym too! -- Aim Here 13:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete whether or not the subject is notable., this article is (a) spam and (b) a Geogre's Law failure. If somebody feels motivated to fix it up in the next few days I'll change my vote, but we don't need the article as nominated. Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks to Capitalistroadster for cleaning it up; I think it's still delete since (a) it's a "pocket-sized book" (i.e. very small) and (b) it does not seem to be widely available (I couldn't find it on Amazon or Barnes and Noble, for example). But at least if it gets kept it's no longer part of her relentless self-publicity campaign. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Such original and brilliant book surely doesn't need promotion here. Pavel Vozenilek 16:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• I liked the quote from the critic: this book is original and brilliant. Unfortunately, that which is original is not brilliant, and that which is brilliant is not original. I think we've seen a few articles herebaouts which fit that description :-)

Changed to No vote after rewrite. Whether someone with single book is notable enough is question I can't answer. Pavel Vozenilek 00:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Very weak keep. Her website claims that she's written for "New Woman, Vogue, Vogue Girl, 9to5 Magazine, The Sydney Morning Herald, and the Daily Telegraph" [1]. Some of the pages turned up by Google [2] seem to suggest that she's somewhat notable in Australia, although Amazon doesn't show anything [3]. (Maybe her next brilliant book?) But since WP:BIO only requires an audience of 5000 or more, I think she qualifies -- if just barely. The style of the current article ("dazzled", "catapulted", "positively effervescent", etc.) needs some NPOV and cleanup work though. If the consensus is delete, I'll change my vote. bcasterline^talk 16:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and strong cleanup. The article is positively saccharine in its descriptors of Ms Brett but it doesn't have a lot to say about her actual worth as a journalist. Book reviews? Citations? Awards for journalistic endeavour? The acronyms and text images mentioned in her book also appear to have existed prior to its publication, Google groups search example.  (aeropagitica)  18:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom and JzG. Probable WP:VANITY/WP:AUTO violation; this article is Rosewiki's only contribution to Wikipedia. I'd even argue it's worth a speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Aaron 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Brett has been featured in major Australian publications and websites. She is notable. Improve content. This is a stub. Remove critical review text since it reads like promotional material. Include information of how she has influenced Australian culture.  Cdcon  19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. The book exists and was reasonably widely reviewed in Australia. A search of an Australian newspaper database for "Samantha Brett" came up with 16 hits all of which appear to be about her. Capitalistroadster 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten this article. No change of position from Keep. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)"
• keep as per above Jcuk 22:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Now the article has been rewritten it's no longer an advert, and I'm a bit happier with it now. Not sure about Ms Brett's notability still (It didn't exactly flood me with hits on a quick google search when I nommed the article), but I'll go with the flow. --Aim Here 00:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It may be rewritten but its still not notable. Mike _{(T C)} 02:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Capitalistroadster's version, Delete otherwise as advertising. -Colin Kimbrell 15:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre's law. Stifle 11:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep she currently has a blog published at the Sydney Morning Herald website Sam and the city -- Paul foord 06:27, 3 March 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.