Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Brodack (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   keep. As is customary, the "votes" of new and unregistered users have been given reduced weight. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Brookers
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Reason the page should be deleted Nor3aga (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - This person is of no notability. one or two articles referencing her were MINOR articles, and she has not made either the news or the internet news in a VERY long time.  Furthermore her pages starts out with no facts.  The phrase 'believed to be' is not encyclopedic.  Maybe we can remake this page when she is big news but she is not and therefore should be deleted. Nor3aga (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In the early days of silent films, names of the actors were not given in the credits. In 1909, Mary Pickford made more than 50 films before anyone knew who she was. Think about it. Pepso2 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't watch this person's stuff, but I see plenty of references to establish notability in the article. One more that I didn't see in there already: USA Today - Also signed by Carson Daly, for whatever reason. SashaNein (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, lots of reliable secondary sources establishing notability. Cited as a prime example of a YouTube celebrity managing to cross over into "old media" outlets, to cite the Wall Street Journal. Huon (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if her influence has waned, she's notable as one of the first viral video stars and did get a network deal out of it. Notability doesn't expire.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah she got a deal but she hasn't done anything with it. This girl has no reason to be here. 214.13.192.187 (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete What is remarkable about this woman, Brooke? She made a few Youtube Videos, some agents contacted her, and nothing else happened?  Just because you are well known on Youtube is no reason to be included in Wikipedia. TDoggShabozz (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Contadina only got "eight, great tomatoes in that little, bitty can" but Brodack got 40 million views. Note that the opening paragraph (part of complaint at top here) has now been completely rewritten to establish notability. Pepso2 (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Besides Brodack getting a lot of yutube views, she really isn't a remarkable person. The article states brodack works at the 99 and was a volunteer?  Other than the one notable fact about her, she is a small fish.  When she does something big then she can included here,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHodgez (talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * When The New Yorker calls someone a "star," it seems doubtful that "small fish" will float. Pepso2 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So now we use the New Yorker as a standard? Look when they FEATURE her work or she makes the cover, then we will talk.  Her career was never started and never went anywhere, that's why she worked as a waitress.  This page is nothing but fanboys of hers trying to protect a page.  Wikipedia needs money and saving them this 35kb of diskspace is a good start.


 * Keep certainly enough independant references to establish notability in the first place and once properly established it doesn't go away. Viridae Talk 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This is not a 'whos who' of Youtube. That is Youtubes job.  We need to start pruning these nobodies now before half of wikipedia is Youtube users.  Like John said above, there is really nothing notable about this broad other than the fact that she has a lot of youtube views and was talked to by Carson Daly.   I haven't seen her work featured ANYWHERE but youtube. We need to get rid of lame articles like this that consist mostly of a person's career in food service. 208.79.15.100 (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2008 (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.