Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Brimley


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarah Brimley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete for the reason listed, fails WP:N.-- &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;  04:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note that WP has an earnest article about Brooklyn Beckham. I suppose this illustrates the contrast between notability (as generally understood) and Wikipedia-style notability. -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * By randomness I came across this AfD, but I created Brooklyn Beckham when I was very new to using Wikipedia regularly, my original draft was rejected and (separately) that page had been blocked from creation for years before I got here, but after trial and tribulation the article eventually it got there because he gained his own notability. As for this Sarah Brimley, the notability factor is not even near the bare minimum for a Wikpiedia article, so it's a speedy delete as A7. ⌚️ (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ⌚️, I don't question the notability (in the Wikipedia sense) of Brooklyn Beckham. Now let's look at A7: "No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) [...] This [...] is a lower standard than notability." The (extraordinarily feeble) article on Brimley cites two sources. One of them is "Interview - Sarah Brimley, theprintspace". The website that hosts this -- not one of major importance, but all the same not negligible -- chose to interview her at some length, and to illustrate the interview with five photographs by her. I don't claim that this is a sufficient indication of notability, but it is an indication of importance. A7 doesn't apply. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But at the same time, the article (if you could even call it that) is 2 sentences. Neither of which display any indication of importance or accomplishment whatsoever, let alone with any reliable sources on her to back it up. So, how is it not. One sentence of opinion in an article about Brooklyn Beckham's career because she happened to be there that day? The bar can't be at this nadir. ⌚️ (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Searching found a few fashion magazine pieces shot by her, and an article about the Beckham controversy quoting her, but nothing reliably published with any depth of coverage about her. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. This could also be an A7 speedy deletion, as our article makes no claim of significance for her. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - after a BEFORE search, I did not find anything to substantiate notability as per GNG or NARTIST, just a lot of social media and blogs. Netherzone (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2020 (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.