Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Brannigan

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 redirect to Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show). This was a fraught and bad-tempered discussion containing a number of allegations, and ad hominem/ad feminem arguments were given no weight in the close. Bbny-wiki-editor has put a creditable amount of effort into finding and linking sources, but I see no evidence that anyone else was convinced. It will be in order to turn the redirect back into an article when and if sources that this AfD did not consider are unearthed.—S Marshall T/C 10:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Kelly Brannigan

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

I'm suggesting a redirect to Deal or No Deal, this girl is known for holding #24 case on the show. I find that hardly notable. There is 1 reliable source about her, the other info is from a dead link, and a mention about her getting a tattoo covered on a show. Fails WP:GNG. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: either redirect (as non-notable mannequin; UK term for model) to Deal or No Deal or delete outright. Quis separabit? 19:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know all about assuming good faith, but this appears to be a bad-faith nomination by Lady Lotus. It seems like she's mad because I objected to some counterproductive edits she made to the page, including the nonsensical deletion of all unused bio template parameters [see her Talk page for the discussion], so now she's retaliating by trying to delete the page. If she thought this subject was non-notable, why'd she bother with all of the edits yesterday rather than nominating the page for deletion? As for the notability question, the nominator inexplicably deleted two major sources from the article but now is claiming sources don't exist. The NBC source still exists here and there's an SI.com source here that she deleted from the page mere moments before nominating the page for deletion. Combine those sources with this one, this one, and this one, plus the fact that Brannigan made dozens of appearances on a popular national TV show, plus a feature on Inside Edition, plus the many blog posts and photo galleries that exist of her online (see Google), and she meets GNG. She's certainly not the most notable person on Wikipedia, but there are hundreds of less notable bios on here. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom as no indication of notability . →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bbny-wiki-editor you assume bad faith, 1. you dont WP:OWN the article so why would I nominate an article just to spite you? 2. When I first saw the article, I was trying to clean it up but the more I looked at it the more I realized she isnt even notable (which her notability had been in question for 3 years). 3. The SI reference, referenced her being "Lady of the Day" or something, something that is hardly notable thus why I removed it. And like I said per my nomination she fails WP:GNG, notability is having signifiant coverage, which she doesnt have. LADY LOTUS • TALK 23:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed bad faith because it appears to be a bad-faith nomination. From the looks of things, you were done with the Brannigan page yesterday and only went back to it because I objected to your counterproductive edits. As the discussion on your Talk page shows, you sought outside opinions and no one agrees with your edits. In a piece of classic Wikipedia pettiness, instead of simply reverting your unneeded Brannigan edits and being done with it, you went back to the Brannigan page to delete it. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They didnt agree with your edit either so whats your point? And again, my nom is perfectly legit. I didn't nominate it to spite you but believe what you'd like LADY LOTUS • TALK 00:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't agree with my point? Are you kidding? Both people you invited to comment disagreed with your deletion of all unused parameters, and I see you went back and re-added a lot of them to the page. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy said "don't leave all the blank parameters in, but don't remove them all, either", and Montana said "I agree with Andy, relevant blank parameters should be left in. If something is completely not useful, it can be removed". So what part is them agreeing with you? And I agreed with them and added back 4 commonly used parameters. Are you trying to be argumentative? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. I objected to you deleting all unused parameters on Brannigan's page, then you insisted it was the right thing to do, then you invited comment and both people who replied said you were wrong to delete any parameters that might be used in the future. But they didn't agree with me? That's really funny. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm done arguing, unless it's about the deletion discussion of her article then no more about what you think I did or didn't do. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has been in question since 2011 and it has not been improved, no has she seemed to have done anything that would make her more notable. Holding a number briefcase really does not seem all that notable. Per nomination, fails WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Please note that the nominator misrepresented the number of sources in this article, claiming only "1 reliable source" when in fact the article has sources at NBC.com, The New York Times, SI.com and The (Auburn) Citizen, plus links to video of a national TV commercial, a 90-second feature segment on the national TV show Inside Edition (which is entirely about the subject of this AfD) and a video at Funny or Die. It is unclear why the nominator claimed there was only "1 reliable source" but all seven (7) of the preceding sources fit Wikipedia's definition of that phrase. Unfortunately, it appears at least a couple of the voters relied on the nominator's description, as they didn't mention, let alone address, the multiple sources referenced or embedded in the article. Thank you. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Note The SI article is a mere mention of her with 2 sentences about her "John D., of Portland, Maine, says, "Hey, Jimmy, has Kelly Brannigan made LLOD yet? Check out her pics!" She hasn't been the LLOD yet and I did check out her pics. Now, she's the LLOD" (That is literally all it says) I hardly find that worth mentioning. The New York Times article is about her tattoo removal. You base that off her needing her own article? The article is also just a mention of her and not entirely about her. Out of 25 paragraphs, she's in 4. The Auburn Pub is 1 reliable source about her. But that's it. She doesn't have any other significant coverage past that. Which fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your response proves that you don't understand what "reliable source" means, which is also clear from your comments at the Amal Alamuddin AfD, where you oddly claimed the New York Daily News, Daily Mail, Radar Magazine, and Us Weekly don't count as reliable sources, and where you were chastised by other users for deleting an ABC News source for apparently similar reasons. A story doesn't have to be interesting in order to count as a "reliable source." A story also doesn't need to be exclusively about a subject in order to count as a "reliable source." Whether a subject is mentioned in 4 paragraphs or 40, The New York Times still counts as a "reliable source" for that subject. Likewise, being featured pictorially at SI.com counts as a "reliable source", whether the photo is accompanied by 2 sentences or 20 sentences. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where I oddly claimed? New York Daily News, Daily Mail, Radar Magazine, and Us Weekly aren't reliable sources, they are all gossip sites. That much was proven so again, what is your point? And the editor who said that removing the source was unacceptable also admitted to not knowing what kind of information to add, which is why I removed the information in the first place, it had nothing to do with the source. And I mention the SI article because notability is having more than just a "mere mention" which is exactly what the article is, so it doesn't help towards your argument that she's notable. Which she isn't. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Wikipedia no longer considers the New York Daily News to be a reliable source? Since when? Can you post a link to that? Just like in the discussion over deleting unused template parameters, you seem incapable of accurately describing reality. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So by being upset over this article being up for deletion, you've now resorted to personal attacks. Nice. But let me break this down for you:

New York Daily News is self proclaimed "Find breaking US news, local New York news coverage, sports, entertainment news, celebrity gossip, autos, videos and photos". Celebrity Gossip - there's your key. You can read more here - WP:GOSSIP.
Daily Mail - numerous discussions about how unreliable it is this one involving the unreliability of the Daily Mail, and this one about stopping use of the Daily Mail.
Radar Online is considered an "American entertainment and gossip website" on Wikipedia. Again, gossip, not reliable.
Us Weekly is self proclaimed "Us Weekly: Celebrity News, Celebrity Gossip and Pictures". There's that Celebrity Gossip again.

LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Pointing out your mistakes isn't a "personal attack." Above, you said it was "proved" that the New York Daily News isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia. Where's the link to Wikipedia's position on that? Also, you're incorrect if you think having a gossip columnist or a gossip section renders an entire newspaper or Web site as unreliable. That's dead wrong. You simply don't know what you're talking about. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"You seem incapable of accurately describing reality" - personal attack, it's no longer about the deletion discussion but your opinion about how I'm incapable of doing something. "You simply don't know what you're talking about." - another personal attack, making it about me and not the discussion. If you continue, I will report you to WP:ANI for your comments that you seem to be making simply because I nominated this article for deletion. That kind of a behavior is unacceptable, so again, make it about the discussion and not about me or any other editor. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice you didn't address the content of my comments above. You're dead wrong about the New York Daily News not being a reliable source, and you're dead wrong about the other sources on the above list. Report me to whomever you want; I don't care. You're just trying to play the victim in order to change the subject away from your obvious errors above. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point out that you were the one that brought up the references from a completely different discussion, the point of reliable sources wasn't being addressed here, it was about the notability of the subject, and having significant coverage, which she still doesn't have. You bought in the other discussion and like I said I pointed out to you that the Daily Mail isn't used as a reliable source per these discussions 1, 2 and 3. Radar is definitely not used and the debate about NYDN and US Weekly are still debated. But bringing up another deletion discussion is just WP:WAX, stick to this discussion. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. In your statement nominating this page for deletion, you claimed the page has only "1 reliable source", which was incorrect then and remains incorrect now. The "reliable source" issue started here, not on some other page. I just happened to notice you were making the same mistake elsewhere. You also said it had been "proved" that the New York Daily News was an unreliable source, which was incorrect then and remains incorrect now (as you seem to be admitting). - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said that much was proven, about the unreliability of Daily Mail and of Radar, many editors agree on the unreliability of NYDN and US Weekly, so it's not like I'm alone on it. As far as the references you mentioned, I wasn't debating the reliability of the SI reference, I was telling you that a mere mention isn't considered significant coverage and therefor cannot be held as a reasonable source when debating notability. The NBC source, while reliable is also a primary source and per WP:PRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources", so you're not helping your case when your few reliable sources are 1 primary and 1 secondary. If that's it, then it lacks significant coverage - which fails WP:GNG, which is what I have been saying the entire time. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you said it was "proved" that the New York Daily News was an unreliable source, not that some other editors happened to agree with you. Also, again, you misrepresented the extent of the reliable sources in the Brannigan article. You didn't say the page has six or seven reliable sources but they don't constitute significant coverage. Instead, you claimed the page had only "1 reliable source", which is how this debate got started. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well I'm telling you now and still, her lack of significant coverage fails general notability guidelines, which is how I started this nomination off. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you "started this nomination off" with either a blatant error or blatant dishonesty, claiming only "1 reliable source" when the article has six or seven. Let's be clear about that. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of my nominations says "Fails WP:GNG." My argument hasn't changed. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:50, 14 May 2014 (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.