Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate de Brito
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. east.718 at 00:37, December 26, 2007
[edit] Kate de Brito
Fluff piece on non-notable blogger. The one source is a society-page listing of her marriage, not a source showing notability. Prod tag removed. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7, biographical page with no notability asserted. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete indeed, not worth a biography, not notable, no real assertion of notability.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. A non-notable bio. After looking at the talk page, we should probably run this AfD the full 5 days (unless, of course, it starts to get really snowy outside). Singularity 06:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Notability is not based on being a blogger - but on being an author of a number of journalistic works in Australian newspapers (print and online as a staff writer). The article about marriage is for biographical purposes. Aussielocust (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note that comment above is from the original page creator, who is probably also the page subject (?).
- No, I'm not the subject. But yes, I'm the original page creator. Aren't I entitled to have an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not? Aussielocust (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, you may attest to the notability of the subject. If you can find a source (or two) that calls her a notable journalist, please add it to the article. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- What criteria would be considered as "a source or two". I've posted a link to the Crikey article, which does note her as a journalist. I'm aware that the listing there is notable on the basis of her family, which generally isn't accepted for Wikipedia notability.I'm basing my assertion of notability on the criteria suggested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uncle_G/On_notability, in as much as there are non-trivial published works (e.g. Newspaper articles) in print media as well as on the web. The secondary notability section states that "We want to include an article on an author that has published widely read books or articles, even if there are no independent published works about that person and the only information about them is the list of what they have published. (Articles on authors comprise both biography and bibliography sections. Even if the former cannot be populated from sources, the latter can.) Therefore our people notability and inclusion criteria comprise secondary criteria that ensure that authors who have published widely read books/articles are included.". So, I could list one or two articles aside from the blog that I'm aware of, if that would help. There's already one cited as a reference 13 on the Christine Bath article. But it wouldn't be a comprehensive list, since most of the print articles don't make it online, and I don't have back issues (and don't live in Sydney). Another option would be to keep the article marked as a stub until more detailed sources can be added. Aussielocust (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm not the subject. But yes, I'm the original page creator. Aren't I entitled to have an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not? Aussielocust (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note that comment above is from the original page creator, who is probably also the page subject (?).
- Delete Rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.39.228 (talk • contribs)
- Speedy delete via CSD-A7 and salt as it appears to have nine lives. Two of the references are incidental mentions of the article subject and the third is a blog written by the subject. This person is not notable by any stretch of the policies or guidelines. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:45, 25 December 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.
