Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Lowe


 * 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. L Faraone  00:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Brenda Lowe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As of date of nom, there are 9 references. Two are YouTubes. One is a self-published source--her own website. One is the CBS website, promoting its own show. One is an interview in a newspaper (Sun-Sentinel) about her fitness routine. One is an interview in TV Guide. Two are interviews in an online blog, zap2it. The ninth is an article in Entertainment Weekly, where she is mentioned only briefly. I don't think any of these establish notability as in-depth independent reliable sources per WP:BASIC. There is also a claim that she won a beauty pageant--what pageant? Did that receive any media coverage? There is also a claim that she was a cheerleader--did her performance as a cheerleader receive any media coverage? This is a clear fail of WP:BASIC and it also fails WP:ENTERTAINER. With that said, maybe someone can find better sources—I looked and could not. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep first, this interview in Sun-Sentinel which the nomination is trying to dismiss as if it's only about her fitness routine in fact mentions that she is in fact a Miami Dolphins Cheerleaders, it's even in the title, so how can you say that there is no third-party verification that she has been a known cheerleader for an obviously notable sports team? It's also third-party reliable verification that she's appeared in twice in Maxim (magazine), an international magazine. You're right that the cameo appearances link to YouTube, which alone isn't enough, but the music video link does imply that she has in fact appeared in a music videos, and it is in fact from the official Vevo channel for the band as opposed to average Joe's channel with the video uploaded. Needless to say the song, the music video is associated with, reached number one in the UK Singles Chart if that's worth anything. As for the commerical, the channel is the official channel for Nature's Path, not average Joe's channel. I even found this which may be just another YouTube link, but who's to say that didn't air on television or a similar form of media? Granted, I can't prove that this Miami Dolphins video did in fact appear on television, but it's material that does suggest significant ties to the Miami Dolphins even years after she retired from cheerleading for them. Zap2it is also more than just average Joe blog, so again, why does it seem like it's getting belittled as a source? Are we going to belittle TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly as reliable sources too? Also, don't say that they are merely interviews that don't verify anything in the Wikipedia article because as I explained with the Sun-Sentinel source, these interviews are reliable source coverage that the Wikipedia article claims are in fact true. Then there's Survivor where she appeared in not one but two seasons Survivor: Nicaragua and Survivor: Caramoan and went pretty far in both seasons.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Response Just to clarify, WP:BASIC says that to establish notability, sources should be independent of the subject. It's fine with me to cite the four interviews, but they do not establish notability because they are mostly the subject's own words, and hence are not independent of the subject.  The question here at this AfD is whether the subject is notable, not whether the facts in the article are verifiable--that's a totally different question.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but Sun-Sentinel even put Miami Dolphins and Survivor in the title of their article, so at least in that case, it's their words, not hers.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This !vote has been struck as having been made by a now-blocked sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per DrumstickJuggler. Nominator even admits that some of these sources are solid forms of verification and DrumstickJuggler is right that the Sun-Sentinel source is using their own words instead of just Brenda's, and thus independant of the subject.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks for commenting, but I think you have misunderstood this discussion and its purpose. I did not say that some of the sources are solid forms of verification.  What I said is that this discussion is about notability, not verifiability.  None of your comments say anything about notability.  You are right that the Sun-Sentinel source does include some words that are not the subject's (a couple hundred, in fact) but you do not explain how this is relevant to any policy on Wikipedia related to this discussion for deletion.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agreed with DrumstickJuggler because, as you said, independence of the subject is related to Wikipedia policy on notability, and you've admitted yourself the Sun-Sentinel source does indeed do that. As for the "solid forms of verification" comment, you didn't directly say that but you implied that when you said "fine with me to cite the four interviews".--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Response Hi, I said just the opposite about the Sun-Sentinel source--it does not establish notability because it is non-independent. It is mostly the subject's own words.  Yes, there are some words that are not the subject's words.  That's what happens in interviews.  Looking at the whole source, it does not cross the threshold of WP:BASIC, which also refers to substantial depth.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The interview part may be her own words, but the introduction is written in third-person, and therefore that part is not in her own words, but the words of the source itself..--Beachsand2004 (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This !vote has been struck as having been made by a now-blocked sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The discussion is of notability, since there is an agreement about verification. That said, only the interview part of the Sun-Sentinel source is first and second person, the introduction like Beachsand2004 said, is in third person. I'm also sure that we have other forms of third-person narratives amongst available sources. Therefore, I think the notability part is established too.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep not all these sources are fully dependant on the subject as the nominator seems to claim. For example, the Sun Sentinel source is only dependant in the interview portion of the source, not in the opening paragraph.-- TV Man 13 00:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Response Actually, I said just the opposite--the Sun-Sentinel source does include words that are not the subject's. But there is not enough depth of coverage there to establish notability per WP:BASIC.  Unfortunately your comments do not make any connection to WP policies.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Depth? You say a "couple hundred in fact" above in reference to words of the independant text, and what about the other sources? I think the comments by the above users already explain how it links to policy.-- TV Man 13 00:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This !vote has been struck as having been made by a now-blocked sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment How odd that all three of the respondents on this page mispelled the word "independent" as "independant."     That's a pretty rare misspelling.  Maybe they are not independent of each other.  This is also interesting.    Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So more than one person in the world edits articles about a show watched by millions of people around the world. What's your point?--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that his point is the combination of shared edits and the uncommon misspelling shared by all three editors could easily be construed as meaning they're the same person. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, Google search returns 250 million results for "independant" vs. 500 million for "independent", so it's a very common misspelling and the odds of 3 different people making the same mistake are not low. With the possible sidenote that this word is spelled "indépendant" in French, and "dependant" is an acceptable spelling of "dependent" in English. Not that I have an opinion on the AFD matter itself, just a statistical note.Geregen2 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, I get 949 million hits for "independent" and 23 million for "independant", a lot different than what you are saying.  And the 23 million includes a lot of non-English results.  I really doubt that in English this word is misspelled 1/3 of the time as you are suggesting.  Maybe you are using the French google?  Anyway, that was not the only similarity among the three accounts.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Rampant socking in this AfD. !Votes above by sock accounts that have been blocked have been struck. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete/comment Crikey. Okay, I don't know what to make of this. Looking at the template for Survivor contestants, I see quite a lot of former Survivor contestants with articles of their own, though having a look at the list shows that a LOT don't, so there isn't a precedent for articles for contestants. Apparently the beauty pageant was Señorita República Deportiva (as per "examiner.com/article/survivor-nicaragua-brenda-lowe-paddle-sports-new-pin-up-girl" which was caught by the spam filter]) but that doesn't have an article of its own (not even as Miss Republic Pageant, so she is not notable as a beauty pageant winner. Okay, she obviously passes WP:HOTTIE, but joking aside, I don't really see anything to show me that she is notable enough to retain an article on her. Mabalu (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete My major reason is WP:BLP1E.  Outside of Survivor, nothing else is substantial enough for notability.  She's at best a D level celebrity who could one day gain more credentials for an article, but right now she, along with most other contestants, does not warrant one.  RoadView (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2013 (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.