Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Brudenell-Bruce (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. The keeps have the stronger arguments, though this is hardly a textbook case for a keeper. Still, it is hard to deny the number of references, even if not all of them seem ideally reliable; there are at least three good ones.. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Florence Brudenell-Bruce
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unnotable model; has news coverage, but solely as a result of her relationships with Jenson Button and Prince Harry. As we know, notability is not inherited. Last AFD closed as no consensus, largely due to the small number of !votes. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability is not WP:INHERITED by virtue of her relationship with Prince Harry, which is all that's made the news.  Msnicki (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. According to provided sources, she dated a race car driver for two years and has dated a royal on and off for a bit. Plus, she's an underwear model, so she gets a little picture-heavy tabloid coverage. And that is pretty much it. Fails WP:N. And I don't think it's worth merging to the articles of either of her beaus. WP ≠ whosdatedwho.com.--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per my reasoning when I nominated the first time. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: What should be discussed here is applicability of Notability (people). Do provided refs indicate notability? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Response. No, they do not. And the fact that you pose this question shortly after a SPA IP address added a boatload of crap new references to this article--"HAIR COLOUR I get highlights done at Neville's on Pont Street. My colourist, Etna, is brilliant because you walk out feeling like you've spent a couple of months in the sun."..."Underwear model Florence Brudenell-Bruce attempted to show her intellectual side on a raunchy photoshoot in Primrose Hill..."--is, um, assuming good faith, unfortunate timing, I guess. But just in case, please be aware that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, Hobbes. I'm still on the fence reviewing the references, some of which are poor quality. However other refs might appear as valid for the topic area of model/acting/fashion related, so I'm not expecting to see academic scholar works on the subject. The article definitely needs some work. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published (what constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad), which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other. While trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability, multiple independent sources, which mention the person  may be combined to demonstrate notability. Prima facie the person discussed does enjoy a reflection of multiple WP:RSs around the world, see for instance:
 * The Times of India source which cover the subject in depth: I've become a true fan of the Bollywood movies: Florence Brudenell Bruce.
 * Vogue UK source Style File - Florence Brudenell-Bruce
 * London Evening Standard source, in depth coverage: Florence Brudenell-Bruce is on a fast track to fame
 * Would those sources and others present in the article indicate notability? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My take is that if the lede sentence says the individual is a model and an actress, then the sources offered in support of notability should be about her work as a model or an actress, not about who she might be dating. A review of her performance by Roger Ebert is one thing, a mention in a gossip column is something else.  Right now, all I see here is the something else.  Msnicki (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The lede sentence is sourced to  AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone actually go read sources? Here's what that one says:  "ONE of London's most stylist girls about town, Florence Brudenell-Bruce is a regular on the capital's social circuit and, recently, the model and former Bollywood actress has been linked to Prince Harry - with rumours of a romance doing the rounds."  That's a gossip column mention.  01:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you continue to read the source, the source expands on model and actress: " Her acting career lead to a role in Bollywood film Love Aaj Kal, while her modelling work has seen her appear in the pages of Vogue and Tatler, as well as in campaigns for Avon, Brora and sporting lingerie for Knickerbox and La Senza. ", though generally agree British press is contaminated by gossips, especially relating to their royal family. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a gossip column. No one thinks gossip columns are reliable, never mind here on Wikipedia, where we have very clear ideas about what constitutes a reliable source.  The whole point of these things is to pass along salacious rumors along with lots of pictures of pretty women and cool guys.  (Did you click the links?  They're all just galleries of pictures.) Going back to the 60s, even Playboy had it figured out that even if all you're really selling is pictures of beautiful people, it helps to add in a lot of silly, irrelevant, largely ridiculous "insight" into the subjects' lives so you'll "know them".  Miss August enjoys making her own cottage cheese while pursuing a Ph.D. in particle physics; left unsaid is that she hasn't heard back yet on her application to the local community college and no one has been willing to taste the cheese, just based on the smell.  It's no different here.  Yes, we can verify she had a role in a movie.  But the reporting of any details about her acting and modeling in a gossip column are likely being passed along uncritically, simply repeating whatever she or her agent gave them.  Msnicki (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The amount of hits from gossip sites is really overwhelming, but that doesn't detract from the coverage she has received in terms of her professional work. While she may not meet the WP:GNG with flying colors, the sources noted by AgadaUrbanit are indeed what is expected by it, and there a couple of others   — Frankie (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The first new link is to a blog and is also primary, as she blogs there (as the piece itself notes). The second link begins "Until now, she has been known for disrobing as a lingerie model and being the ex-girlfriend of Formula 1 champion Jenson Button." Perhaps she wants to change this image? Anyway, she's gone out and bought some art (her family are rich), hired an art dealer to display it, and now she and/or the dealer are promoting the display. The third item is a couple of lines of fluff, although it is in The Telegraph, from their "Celebrity News" section.
 * While not notable for any specific areas of accomplishment, as Frankie suggests the gossip sites reference, this person is on the path to becoming notable on famous-for-being-famous grounds. I don't think she's there yet, but as AgadaUrbanit and other editors have observed, there is at least a case to consider here. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The first link I gave has been moved here. I agree that that source is weak given the stated connection, although her contribution is a one time entry for a monthly photo blog, and the other entries seem to be contributed by subjects that would have no relation with the publisher otherwise. The second link goes on to say "For since graduating from Bristol University in history of art three years ago she has been busily building her own art collection. Now the 23-year-old, who is known as Flee, is ready to display her pieces of modern British art in a salon she is holding next week at the Old Bond Street gallery of Robin Katz  -  son of millionaire art dealer Daniel Katz. Stowe-educated Flee, daughter of Old Etonian wine merchant Andrew Brudenell-Bruce, tells me: 'Modelling and acting are what I do, but they can be such a rollercoaster, whereas art is lovely to have in my life as a constant." Regardless of whether this is a significant achievement or it is just due to her connections, the article itself represents third-party coverage as expected by the GNG. The same goes for the third link, even though it's short. Personally, I think the material available is already enough to satisfy our inclusion criteria, and given the circumstances it is reasonable to expect coverage of similar quality to continue to emerge — Frankie (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We actually have an article on Famous for being famous with a great link to a Washington Post article: "The truly famesque possess the seeming gravitas that comes with a title and the suggestion of a job -- actor, singer, pro athlete. It's just that . . . you've never seen them act, or heard them sing, or watched them play."  This is my point, above:  Gossip columns can say what they like.  No one expects them to be reliable sources.  But if we're going to have an article claiming the individual is a notable actor and model here on Wikipedia, our standards are higher, there should be reliable sources to support that claim.  In this case, they don't exist.  Msnicki (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not go that far, Bollywood film Love Aaj Kal and modelling work which appear in the pages of Vogue and Tatler, or campaigns for Avon, Brora and sporting lingerie for Knickerbox and La Senza appear preaty solid to me. Those are not gossips. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go that far either. Reliable sources do exist, they're just being overshadowed by the rest. If we could imagine this AfD without the connection to Prince Harry and James Button, as if only the six links above existed, we would have a borderline notable subject, maybe a model/actress/curator, maybe just a celebrity. It wouldn't be a slum dunk delete, and even if it was deleted there is enough indication of possible future coverage to note that the usual caveats would apply (as it actually does in the event this article gets deleted) — Frankie (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Johnny Squeaky !voted delete and continuing to remove refs and material, while the AfD is still ongoing. He did it three times so far: December 18, December 19 and December 20. There is a good chance that the page would be deleted soon, so I am not sure why to rush and WP:EW. I'm discussing this here, since the editor ignores talk page discussion. Reviewing admin should examine page history carefully. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominal Keep - just reverted the biased and unhelpful edit of Johnny Squeaky again, and I fully agree with the logic of AgadaUrbanit that his edits where highly unhelpful to this debate. This is the second debate on this article, both of which have been subjected to unhelpful in debate edits. Does she pass WP:NOTABILITY? Whether the extensive press and media coverage started or came from, there are presently 17 references, of which 3 support her private life. After that, around two thirds are from sources which pass WP:RS, and the rest are mainly specialist fashion sources. You can't judge her as a passing fade with a 5+ year career, so its a question of whether she passes the criteria? For me hence on balance its a nominal keep. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * RS sources produce slurry as well as ore. The fact that you are pointing to numbers rather than actual items seems to me a concession that the actual citations are trivial or otherwise garbage. Please, which actual items should we look at, and judge? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I would normally say that Notability has to be notability for something, but an exception needs to be made for people who are essentially society figures, whom the public considers notable for merely existing. These cases must be judged individually, and in my opinion, we should judge them very critically, to avoid the danger of falling into NOT TABLOID. Whether this particular person passes that bar will always be a matter of opinion.  Famous for being famous, yes, when it's a matter of being famous, but I don't think she reaches that level. I'm not particularly impressed with the nature of most of these  sources--some are in a sense reliable without their world, but I would have said weak delete were it not for the CBS News article, which is a mainstream source not given to tabloid coverage. (I'm a little diffident, though, at judging UK sources in this respect--I'd be  more confident if this was NYC, not London.)  DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 26 December 2011 (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.