Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Staricha

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. No evidence of notability outside the reality show has been presented. --

Brooke Staricha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Non-notable losing contestant on a reality television show. (Though, this article calls it a "dramality t.v. show".) Hasn't done anything notable since losing. Didn't do anything notable before losing. Mikeblas 16:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That and I'm pretty sure she started the page herself. Delete, non-notable Missvain 17:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. There are so many reality TV progs around the world at the moment, and each with, say between 15 and 20 contestants... that's 14 to 19 losers... that's like a gazillion pages on Wikipedia about people who are otherwise non-notable, and indeed non-notable period. Take the mighty axe of deletion to all, I say. The only purpose it serves is to promote non-notables, and we don't suffer that from any other group of so-called celebrities, do we? Rant over. Cheers.
  Bubba hotep 23:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Longstanding precedent is that only winners of reality tv shows are notable unless they have done something else noteworthy. JoshuaZ 00:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ample precedent, non-notable game show contestant. Xtifr _tälk 04:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom... And isn't it enough that the losers are already listed on many of the show's pages?
  SkierRMH 06:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Reality contestants are inherently notable by virtue of being on a widely-watched program. Meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely nothing in
    WP:BIO to support this position, as already deconstructed here. wikipediatrix 17:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Per WP:BIO: "television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Reality contestants meet the little line items if you need them for further reference. Please cease with the incivil accusations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are you leaving out part of the sentence? What
        WP:BIO specifically says is: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" and then goes on to spell out what constitutes "notable". Next time you quote policy, try not to leave out the part of the sentence that doesn't agree with you! wikipediatrix 17:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • What relevant part am I leaving out? The sentence agrees with me, so I don't have to hide anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Would you have a Wikipedia page for someone who was interviewed for a news story? Vpoko 18:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable tv personality. JBKramer 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I respectfully disagree with
  WP:V. -- Satori Son 20:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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.