Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Howard-Smith

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 procedural close. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KiwiMan) and no !votes for deletion are otherwise present, so procedurally closing at this time. No prejudice against re-nomination for deletion by a user in good standing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Howard-Smith

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Sources are not notable. TV Personality is simply not notable enough for Wikipedia.~~ One4Onenz (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of a series of Afds from a new account created solely (it seems) to bring NZ bio articles to Afd. Once again, the subject appears to be manifestly notable. What exactly is "not notable" about the New Zealand media coverage displayed via Gnews, which includes headlined stories in major NZnews outlets? Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nominator's account has been reported to SPI. Schwede 66 17:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and report/block nominator for disruptive editing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourced article, and don't understand nominator's rationale that "TV personality is simply not notable." Passes WP:ENTERTAINER based on multiple television hosting roles alone. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not sure why this discussion was listed in Women-related deletion discussions when the subject is male? -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep obvious bad-faith nomination: plenty of WP:RS showing in GNews for him. Wikishovel (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2017 (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.