Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicky Brago-Mitchell (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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Brago-Mitchell

Minimal notability asserted: in the news for having taken her clothes off; since that time, has done a very little of this, that and the other. Not a speedy because not a re-creation of the article created before, this is more carefully done and more comprehensive than its predecessor. Hoary 05:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the previous AfD. -- Hoary 05:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, and the only possible claim to fame is being the first person to post nude for a campus magazine (which is unsourced, and i'm not sure if that is a big deal anyways). TJ Spyke 06:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given total lack of sources. Nothing against a polymath, but while all of the separate bio snippets are not without interest, its not clear that togther they add up to notability. Robertissimo 07:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on "sources". Three have been added since this was nominated for AfD: one showing that Time mentioned her stripping, one to the top page of her husband's site (thus not independent), one to a page selling her computer graphics. So all that's sourced so far is that, yes, she really was in the news for taking her clothes off. -- Hoary 08:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the various activities or occupations she has practiced in her life is itself enough to qualify under
WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 17:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

weak keep Though it seems unnotable now, her early appearances were notable at the time, and thus remain notable for our purposes. Better sources till needed, tho it isn't easy for that sort of thing so far back. The Time ref. is just a single paragraph; I'd want to see at least 1 or 2 other such references. DGG 02:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: That there could be an online source forty years down the road from her principal fame is marginally impressive. Come to that, though, there was an AfD that passed a few days ago on the sole strength that the subject made the cover of Playboy once, and this gal was in the mag twice, the main appearance being in the Sept. '68 issue. There's also a citation on the Stanford cite under corporate figures who attended (under her maiden name of Bowles) [1].
RGTraynor 18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the added sources (see diff). I would, however, like to contest the point that she was in the news only for taking off her clothes. She was in the news for taking off her clothes in the 1960s in the United States (yes, it was California, but still ...). Also, the fact that she merits a mention in Time 40 years after the peak of her fame suggests some lasting notability.
WP:NOT#PAPER and we can always revisit the issue later on. -- Black Falcon 06:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- Are you suggesting that taking one's clothes off in the 60s in the US was more significant than doing so in the 90s in the US or in the 60s in France? If so, how? Also, I've looked at the links, but they really do little more than confirm that she took her clothes off and that she sells computer-generated artwork. I'm still underwhelmed. -- Hoary 09:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And there is indeed nothing about which to be overwhelmed (or even regularly "whelmed"). Yes, she took her clothes off, but that's not all that happened and certainly not the relevant part. What's relevant is that she appeared in the news because of it and also in Playboy. And, yes, taking one's clothes off in the 1960s in the US was more significant than doing so in the 1990s in the US. Why? Because social norms were different then. I don't know about 1960s France, but someone taking their clothes off in France now probably wouldn't even get a mention in the local evening news (and rightly so), whereas the US media was captivated for over a week with a "wardrobe malfunction". Should she be in an encyclopedia based on her 1960s stripping? That's the wrong question to ask. Should she be in the encyclopedia because of the news coverage and her Playboy appearances? Yes. And again, if she is noted in Time magazine 40 years after her disrobing, that seems to suggest some lasting notability. -- Black Falcon 17:29, 15 March 2007 (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.