Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divine Brown (sex worker)

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. Sr13 00:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divine Brown (sex worker) (second nomination)

Previous vfd:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divine Brown

This seems to be a person whose fifteen minutes of fame came when she was arrested in the company of English Hollywood actor Hugh Grant in Los Angeles. Some minor exploitation followed by nothing seems to have come of it. I suggest that if nothng major turns up over the next few days we just treat this as a redirect to the relevant section of the Hugh Grant article. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I've got 11 hits on google books and 30 on google scholar. Several of the papers are focused on sex work and media coverage, and seem to talk about her in the aftermath, not just as a footnote to hugh grant. She's her own woman who parleyed one event with a celebrity into a measure of her own fame now. Subject of multiple documentary films should be enough for most people. I wouldn't call $1.6 million some minor exploitation, especially when she kept putting herself on tv for years. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - I doubt there's a major news source on the planet that hasn't covered her. I don't see how you can pass WP:N any more strongly. Notability is permanent — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It's granted that her only claim to fame is being a prostitute that Hugh Grant hired, but that is her claim to fame - and a side effect of Hugh Grant's... um, adventures through media-land due to this is that now she is notable as well, if only because of the coverage this affair received. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I look forward to seeing the currently very thin article expanded with accounts of her notable non-Grant related exploits since 1995. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • By the looks of things, Tony, it looks like the article already contains some of this - and in this case, other users are right: notability doesn't just go away. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. George Bush is only notable for being President. When his 8 years are up, I expect you'll nominate his article for deletion. Actually I don't. What I really expect is that you'll continue to flag for deletion any article about a prostitute, since that seems to be your MO. Ikilled007 00:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I assumed good faith on the last article he nominated for deletion until he admitted that not only had he not read the policies, he didn't and doesn't care what they say and that his opinion was more important than any consensus. You can see it for yourself here: [[1]]. So my assumption of good faith was overturned by the fact that it's not good faith. Sorry. Ikilled007 05:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Even so, let's keep that argument out of here, 'k? It hedges dangerously close to being a dick. Granted, but two wrongs don't make a right. Just take it privately. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Not just notable for the oral sex incident. She also went on talk shows and made millions for her appearances. This makes her a minor celebrity. -N 01:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, passes "involvement in news events" criterion of WP:N, and notability does not expire. Continues to be referenced in the news in relation to that event: see current Google News results. --Dhartung | Talk 04:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't agree with "so-and-so is only famous because..." nominations - the person is famous, that's notable. The article's short and stubby, but that's not a great reason for deletion either. --Canley 11:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seemingly bad-faith nom that clearly does not meet community standards. Please remember that notability does not expire. If independent, verifiable sources exist, there should be an article about the subject. This is the case with Divine Brown, and therefore the article should be kept. DickClarkMises 13:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's true that her fame originally came from one incident, and if it had been confined to that, I would back a section in Hugh Grant's article and no more. Also, if she were being exploited from this, I could see backing a deletion out of basic human decency. However she has since appeared in a number of things independent from Grant, and has been exploiting her own fame for as much (little?) as it is worth, so neither of those apply. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and verifiable. --Myles Long 16:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, we keep notable sex scandal participants: Monica Lewinsky, etc. Carlossuarez46 17:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep significant media coverage, when a newspaper that covers Bombay India gets this story in it... she deserves an article.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd love to withdraw this nomination, but I just can't see much outside the Hugh Grant arrest. Here's what I mean. I look at the statements about the things she's done before or since, and then I look to see the references in the article. At present this is all I see:
    1. a reference to a book by Matthew Lippman in which apparently her subsequent arrest on minor charges is documented
    2. a reference to a website called rotten.com, which describes it mission as "collects images and information from many sources to present the viewer with a truly unpleasant experience." Is this what we call a reliable source? I think I hope the answer is "no".
    3. A link to a PDF file published by City Hall, a small independent music publisher (I can't find anything on Wikipedia about these people but this doesn't necessarily mean they're not well established) On page 20 of that PDF file is an item about a DVD about "the story leading up to her arrest with actor Hugh Grant and what happened after her arrest. Which brings us back to the Hugh Grant connection again.
    • I also note that the article contains many unsourced statements, which if this article is kept I shall remove (Biographies of living persons).
    • Now none of this is to denigrate Ms Brown. Contrary to what has been implied elsewhere on this AfD, I don't have some moral bug up my ass about prostitutes, and those who know me well from the admins channel will be well aware of this.
    • No, my problem here goes somewhat to the heart of Wikipedia is supposed to be: an encyclopedia. The references we have, such as they are reliable and demonstrate something of encyclopedic worth, do not corroborate any significant biographical information except her arrest with Hugh Grant and, eleven years later, her appearance in a DVD about the incident. This is why I think that, on balance, it may still be worth turning this into a redirect to Hugh Grant. There's nothing much else to write about her.
    • So I'll not withdraw this yet, I'll await developments on the article itself. If in a short time I see sourced evidence of something more significant and unrelated to Hugh Grant, then I'll change my mind.
    • And finally, thank you to those who have worked on the article so far. It is better than it was when I turned it into a redirect the other day. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as the name does keep coming up. JJL 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for many reasons stated above. Weatherman90 15:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per commenters above, as subject has exploited her own fame similar to Monica Lewinsky which is also passable under WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 07:03, 28 May 2007 (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.