Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandy Howard (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an actress, making no strong claim of notability per WP:NACTOR — as written, her notability is parked entirely on television commercials, one-shot appearances as minor guest characters in sitcoms, and webseries. And the sourcing isn't adequate to satisfy WP:GNG either — most of the "sources" are blogs, and the few that do actually count as reliable sources aren't actually about her, but just glancingly namecheck her existence in coverage of other topics. This is different enough from the original article that it doesn't qualify for speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but it still isn't different enough to have attained keepability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The filmography section needs trimmed due to not having sourcing but the subject is notable based on being the host of numerous television shows. I am not sure there is a level - i.e., "strong" - of notability that is needed. Here is one that she hosts [1] along with another here [2]. The career section names a few more. One network is Bravo which is not a website. Not a fan of Bravo, but its still a cable television network. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no particular "level" of notability that's needed — the criteria for actors are vague enough that it's effectively possible to claim an WP:NACTOR pass for almost any actor who exists at all. But a Wikipedia notability criterion is not passed by asserting that it's passed — it's passed by reliably sourcing that it's passed. So there is a particular level of sourceability that's needed — but no sourcing has been provided here which even approaches that level, because it's sourced entirely to blogs, primary sources and glancing namechecks and not at all to any evidence of reliable source coverage which is substantively about her. Bearcat (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I agree that while her numerous TV/web appearances still don't add up to much industry coverage or recognition--and some of these blog source are of dubious merit---it seems wikipedia has allowed other pages to stand for performers of comparable accomplishment. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:OTHERSTUFF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Comparable accomplishment" has nothing to do with it — Wikipedia's inclusion rules aren't about what you can assert that a person did, but what you can verify in reliable source coverage that they did. It's even possible for a person to have accomplished more in principle than somebody else, while being less includable in Wikipedia because they generated less in the way of media coverage for it. A person can accomplish absolutely nothing of any real value but still get into Wikipedia anyway, if they're famous for being famous — and a person can have done genuinely important work but not get into Wikipedia for that, if their work was behind the scenes and below the media radar. If you're judging people on the substance of their accomplishments, for example, then I totally put Kim Kardashian to shame — but she gets media coverage and I don't, so she's in Wikipedia and I'm not. So two people of "comparable accomplishment" can also fall on opposite sides of that equation, if one of them got more media coverage for it than the other one did — Wikipedia's inclusion rules aren't about the accomplishment itself, but about the volume and quality of sourcing you can provide to verify the accomplishment. Bearcat (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep at least for now as it seems including with looking at her IMDb, that there's actually not as much as there could be for a better article, but more or less, the current version may be marginally acceptable for now. Notifying past AfDers Johnuniq, DGG, GB fan and S Marshall (the latter participated at DRV). SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Many sources have been added; I consider none of them reliable for the purposes of establishing notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Her coverage fails WP:GNG, hence also fails WP:BLPNOTE. The lack of a claim to notability makes it difficult to find any basis in WP:NACTOR, and I didn't find one. The article says that she is well known for her television commercials, yet I could not find a reliable source to that effect, or really much of any source. Is it WP:OR? --Bejnar (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2015 (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.