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. Cirt (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Janice Brabaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable person. Author of two self-published books which are not notable, and has been a production coordinator for a handful of TV episodes. No independent sources to verify biographical details. Very few Google hits. Article was originally written by Brabaw's PR agent, definite COI issues. Same author wrote a similar article about Brabaw two years ago which was speedied. This edition was speedy-tagged but declined, then PRODded which was removed without explanation. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. ThatsNotFunny (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Why? (BTW, this is the same editor who removed the ((prod)) without any explanation in the edit summary.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC
• Please read WP:NOREASON. MuZemike (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Brabacious (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)" The books are not self-published. Another article was deleted a couple years ago because we didn't know that you could "fight" deletion. There is nothing wrong with writing an article that is a biography as long as the person has done something notable or unique. Her books are not self published, she owns her own production company, she directed and produced a film and has worked in the entertainment industry for seven years. Just today another article was written about her by WWTI-TV in Watertown, New York. She is one of few authors that has written about borderline personality disorder. If you google her name, tons of things come up - mostly related to her work in television and film. Almost all of the biographical info is supported either by IMDB or www.JaniceBrabaw.com. Yes, we are trying to gain publicity and notoriety for this writer, but we are being unbias - per Wikipedia rules. If you have specific issues that about where we can edit the article or where we need more references, let me know. I don't really know how Wikipedia works. I'd appreciate help instead of someone just trying to delete my article and make things difficult[reply]

• As I told you beforehand, Wikipedia specifically forbids articles which promote anything at all, and especially self-promotion or promotion by someone who is paid to do so, as you admittedly are. Please read this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Last time I checked you don't have to be a New York Times Best Selling Author or have won an Oscar. She's a new talent making her way. No skin off wikipedia's back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SparkyJo (talk • contribs) 05:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC) — SparkyJo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment: This user signed up for a user name exactly one minute before posting this comment, and has no other contributions other than that and a snarky message posted on my talk page. I am beginning to suspect sockpuppetry, but it's just an old reporter's instincts right now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. since when did wikipedia become the c.i.a. trying to seek out when users signed up, posted messages, etc. it's not that serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlahBlah2008 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC) — BlahBlah2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Please read WP:NOHARM, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NOTMYSPACE. MuZemike (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My remarks to the entry before this one apply here too, excpet this user took three minutes from sign-up to vote. Anyone noticing a pattern here? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion based on the merits of the arguments. Recently-created single-purpose accounts don't usually carry much weight, especially if they just parrot each other. Bringing a ton of sock-puppets is pretty pointless (and usually obvious) and I've seen it be counterproductive in their AfD goal. DMacks (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Let's cut the hyperbole and personal feelings about what is an "important" person. Wikipedia already has quite clear guidelines about what makes a person "notable enough to merit having a page here": WP:BIO describe the level of notability/accomplishment and WP:RS describes the types of sources we need to support those claims of notability. If the books are groundbreaking or very important in their field, then it should be no problem to find reviews in major mainstream publications or in scholarly journals in that field. DMacks (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note — Obvious SPA attempts here in this discussion. MuZemike (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't find any evedience of notability. References in the article are:
  • Her own website so doesn't establish notability
  • Her entry on imdb. Apart from the fact such an entry does not establish notability there appears to be nothing notable in her credits.
  • An amazon product with such a low sales rating I can't believe it establishes notability.
  • A press release. Press releases don't establish notability per WP:N.
  • An article on a university's website. Coverage is little more than trivial as it just says what she's doing and I don't think even an in-depth article in such a source would establish notability.

Further, a google search only returns about 70 hits nearly all of which are either imdb (or similar) or facebook (or similar). Dpmuk (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable person's self-promotion. PS: If you're going to rummage in the sock-drawer, try not to pick socks that match. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for not establishing notability. The sources can't really be classified as reliable or substantial and the tone just smacks of the meddling of a PR firm. The militant SPAs above only exacerbate things, too. In the end, I'm afraid that one (and a half) self-published books, a screenplay that seems to have stalled and credits as an assistant accountant (amongst other things) on a handful of reality shows do not add up to a WP article. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've just noticed that the majority of the article is taken verbatim from here... just thought this possible copyright violation should be noted here too. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence provided (or found on searching) of reliable sources discussing this woman, her books or film -Hunting dog (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:V, and anything else you can throw at it. The comments of the anon above, "Yes, we are trying to gain publicity and notoriety for this writer" pretty much says it all, really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dpmuk expresses the issue perfectly. -Verdatum (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• THis is an author who has written two books. There is no assertion of notability in the article, apart from the fact that someone wants her to have a broader profile. WIki is not a book catalog -- delete -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Non notable person, fails WP:BIO. Neptune5000 (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2008 (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.