Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelcey Brade


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Kelcey Brade

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Autobiography. A PROD was earlier declined, and an even earlier stub was deleted. Plenty of sources briefly mention  the subject's work or collaboration  on  journalistic projects, but  this is inevitable for reporters. I have been unable to  find RS about the subject. The community should decide. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment - Hmm... my nom appears to  be about  a subject  that  is so  little known, that  it's not  even attracted any  !votes here. It  can't  be CSDd because it  makes claims of notability, but  it  can't  be deleted out of process either. Therefore I'm  clearly  advocating  deletion for lack  of independent  RS dedicated to  the subject, rather than an eventual  'keep' per no  consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I made a search for sourcing before reading the article, and came up with essentially what's in the article, I don't see this quite hitting the GNG.  --joe deckertalk to me 06:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete essentially per nom, can't find any third-party coverage. Note you could have PRODed this: the PROD that was declined was specifically a BLP PROD, and WP:PROD allows articles where a BLP PROD has been declined to be deleted through the normal PROD process. Hut 8.5 08:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know; I  don't  know why  I  didn't  think of it  at  the time -  I  know the policy  well enough. It  would have been gone by  now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No harm done, though, I'm sure casual observers who find this will get a better understanding of why it was deleted due to the discussion. PROD deletions can upset people and new editors not familiar with how wikipedia works.  I think most people assume almost anyone can have a wikipedia page, and are surprised when that notion is tested.--Milowent • talkblp-r  13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that any article that's been through two full cycles at AfD has had at least as much chance to be contested as a PROD, would it make sense to treat 14-day-AfDs-without comment as PRODs? --joe deckertalk to me 13:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A reasonable idea, assuming an AfD-without-comment-deletion article could be restored like a PROD if requested.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, yeah, I should have been explicit about that assumption. --joe deckertalk to me 17:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, like the nominator I found plenty of brief mentions but that is all. Not enough to meet WP:GNG. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: In trying to source BLPs for WP:UBLPR, I've run across lots of these local news broadcaster articles, most of whom are not notable. I've seen lots of ones for Scottish TV.   Anyway, many are only partially verifiable (usually using their station's bio page), and are probably not notable.  If the standards applied in Articles for deletion/Serene Branson are used, where a local broadcaster had some decent minor coverage, some minor local awards, and one big huge BLP1E moment of fame, this article should be deleted.--Milowent • talkblp-r  13:31, 26 May 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.