Samantha Brick ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Since the entirely proper close of the AfD (nominated due to BLP1E) Mrs Brick has become a contestant on the highly respectable program Celebrity Big Brother. She is now no longer notable for only one event and has attained the minor celebrity that makes overturning of the deletion the thing to do, methinks, so the article maintains its history when the big brother stuff is added to it. I have not discussed this with the deleting admin, Black Kite, for the simple reason that according to his talk page he is on holiday, so there would be no point! I will of course notify him however. Egg Centri c 15:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Egg Centri c 15:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Yup. Hilarious though it is to see Celebrity Big Brother called "highly respectable", the substantive point is correct: she's over the bar for a separate article now. If I was in charge of Wikipedia then it wouldn't cover Samantha Brick, a woman who I personally find rather annoying, but our criteria are what they are. I'm also fairly confident that Black Kite will agree.— S Marshall T/ C 20:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I notice about one celebrity per season without articles, so we have apparently decided that this does not automatically constitute notability. I doubt they are omitted because we were unaware of their existence. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• BLP1E really? She's been the main topic in over 100 news articles (e.g., name in article title) since at least October 2010. [1] and has been mentioned in about 400 reliable sources going back to April 2009. It may have been one event that thrust her in the spotlight, but the reliable source coverage expanded well beyond that into all aspects of her life. Her actions draw persistent news coverage of her life and there's more than enough biography info on her to create a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. A quick look at the reliable source info shows that it probably is more negative coverage than positive and WP:NPOV likely would have the article with a negative slant to reflect the news coverage. It's not Wikipedia's job to protect people who intentionally and persistently chose to thrust themselves in the spot light and receive negative coverage in response to their effort. That being said, I'm not going to request the close be overturned given up-to-now difficulty of writing a biography that meets WP:NPOV. It may be better to wait until an editor steps forward to produce a draft article that, rather than cherry pick the negative news coverage, provides a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature and meets Wikipedia's core content policies. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 06:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• I find ironic that between the administrators' noticeboard and here, you've written almost twice as much prose as ever existed in any version in the edit history that you want undeleted, Egg Centric. And the largest (non copyright-violating — N.B.) versions spent more prose discussing the Daily Mail than they did the article subject. In fact, for almost all of that history the "2012 controversy" and discussion of the Daily Mail comprised all of the article bar one short introductory sentence and a useless infobox that largely repeated it. That is, of course, because editors suffered from recentism and didn't really want to write a biography, just a summary of what was recently in the news/on television. The only one who did want to write a biography, Hmcog ( talk · contribs), apparently couldn't write xyrself and so resorted to copying the writing of others wholesale. The sad facts are: that you're going to get one 10 word sentence of useful content (which you could probably replicate right now) from the undeletion; and that it's not a protected redirect, so with this much typing you could have written an actual biographical article from scratch by now. Uncle G ( talk) 09:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC) reply

  That may be but I wanted to preserve the history (and avoid a speedy as recreation of deleted content) Egg Centri c 15:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - original AfD. Looking through a few of the past Celebrity BB pages I note that most...but not all...participants have Wikipedia articles, as in the past they were notable for something else. The few that do not appear to be D-listers, relatives of famous people, or somesuch. So, simply being a part of the cast is itself not inherently notable. I'd say if she wins, then that will certify article-worthiness on that alone. Though I'm rooting for my Jersey Boy the Sitch. :) Tarc ( talk) 15:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• allow recreation Original AfD was reasonable, but it seems clear that the primary cause for deletion, BLP1E, no longer applies. JoshuaZ ( talk) 03:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (Delete and/or redirect). Agree that the keep arguments were very weak. I recommend that attempts to recreate start by expanding coverage at the redirect target, or via a userpage/incubator draft. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation. The AfD close was an obvious one at the time, but obviously circumstances change. On the other hand, I spat my coffee out at "the highly respectable program Celebrity Big Brother" in the nom. Cheers for that :) Black Kite ( talk) 17:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation. Tarc's right that being in Celebrity Big Brother isn't enough by itself, but that shouldn't be an issue since notability is now derived from at least two events. At the very least it deserves another AfD since the main argument for deletion, BLP1E, is no longer applicable. I'm not too keen on the idea of expanding coverage at the redirect target as the new content wouldn't really be relevant to the Daily Mail article... Alzarian16 ( talk) 00:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close. Also permit recreation since April 2012 AfD-closing admin agrees with that.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 15:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close but allow recreation given changing events and the thoughts of the closing admin. Hobit ( talk) 16:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• If her notability isn't for what she did before deletion is there anything work keeping from the older article? Can someone restore it temporarily so we can have a look? IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply