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 keep. - there is a consensus to keep, even after discounting the sockpuppetry. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2013 (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)).

Roberta Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable stunt double, previously deleted at prod. No WP:RS whatsoever to establish notability per any entertainment guideline or WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Have re-entered some career details with sources. She is notable as a woman swordmaster in a male dominated profession. There are a number of swordmasters and stuntmen mentioned on wikipedia who have articles.REVUpminster (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a female in a male-dominated field does not make for notability. And the other articles you mention are irrelevant as WP:OTHERSTUFF. Qworty (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the best I could find was mention in an LA Times article about sword choreography, along with other people involved in that. She does not meet the notability requirements for an actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Focus of article in LA Times Mentioned and quoted in a more-than-trivial fashion in Backstage Telegraph But even with coverage as a female swordmaster whose opinion is sought out by the press, this is perhaps not enough to satisfy WP:GNG? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At least she appeared on the ITV series The Story of Costume Drama [1] and also on youtube there is an interview with her split in two about her involvement with Charlie's Angels from day one. It is more than the other hundred or so articles about stunt actors on wikipedia.REVUpminster (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • YouTube isn't WP:RS and the articles about other stunt actors are WP:OTHERSTUFF. Qworty (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the ITV programme and it's commentary and interview with Brown a reliable source. I am an inclususionist and think all knowledge is useful to someone and even this article that I did not create should be saved.REVUpminster (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a stunt person on a TV show, abysmally failing WP:ENTERTAINER. Wikipedia should ignore the Hollywood practice of recognizing the 1,000 people who appear in ten minutes worth of credits these days. What's next, an article about the caterer for Queen of Swords? This isn't "knowledge." It doesn't even rise to the level of Hollywood trivia. Qworty (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is an example of WP:ITBOTHERSME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taram (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

• Is the TV programme a reliable source? Also should the creator of the article User talk:Taram of the proposed deletion. He is still active. REVUpminster (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - It is appropriate to notify the original author, and any significant editors of the article. I have notified Taram (talk · contribs) -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The LA Times article can be viewed be viewed here. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply and Keep Thank you for contacting me about this discussion Whpq and thank you for suggesting I be contacted REVUpminster. Unfortunately, I am in a battle with a publishing company in New York today and so I do not have alot of time to spend on this matter(today); however, I will give my input. As I review the history of the page, it had a complete page as of April 1, 2013. Then on April 2nd (Brown's birthday interestingly enough), the vast majority of information on the page was deleted. That which was left was re-written to say that after being a swordmaster, Brown is a Mahjong player. No offense to the avid Mahjong players out there, but of course that is going to make a person sound insignificant. I noticed that this page has been located successfully in Wikipedia since December of 2009 with no comments on eliminating it until April 2, 2013. It does not seem to me that a person goes from being a part of history to insignificant. There was something behind the attempt to eliminate this page on April 2 and it would be worthwhile knowing what that was. I briefly reviewed the notability requirements for Wikipedia and here is my response matched with that information: Before the vast majority of the Brown page was removed on April 2nd, there were a number of cited sources to be used for information. The information on the page that was removed was completely reliable and verifiable. A problem Wikipedia has in some cases is that some editors only count a verifiable source as an article on the internet. If you consider how one cites research papers, one notes that articles, video, audio, and interviews are also reputable sources. One can create a page on the internet and start referring to it as a source. That is not as reliable as an in person interview. Brown is not a one horse wonder, nor should other biographies be judged by that standard. For Americans, John Wilkes Booth was a tolerable touring actor barely worth mentioning in the annals of history, then he supposedly killed the sitting president of the United States. That is one thing. He never did anything else that was significant. Does that make him a one horse wonder not worth mentioning. Many historians would beg to disagree with that. Qworty's comment "Being a female in a male-dominated field does not make for notability" is also worth a reply: Nor is being black or a Jew or anything else; however when one persists and opens doors for others, one is significant. Martin Luther King was not the first person to march against segregation; however, he was the first to be recognized and recognition made the effort significant. Qworty's comment is also concerning because on April 4, 2013 s/he was reported at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page for Persistent disruption in articles on gender studies academics. I am hoping that there is not a pattern of harassment going on. Regarding John Pack Lambert's comment that she does not meet the notability requirements for an actor, I totally agree. Roberta is a terrible actor. She is a swordmaster and the first female to make inroads into television at that. She had to fight, struggle and work for that a male dominated profession to give her that chance and in doing so, she opened doors for other women, especially Jewish women, to live their dreams of being a swordmaster, if that is what they want. Now I know you all will do whatever you want, so nothing I have to say matters, but as REVUpminster commented, every participant in history that helps move this world just a little bit forward matters and is worth noting especially for those who are yet to come. Now if you will excuse me, I need to go back to my other publishing battles. 19:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Taram (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find it very interesting that Qworty started deleting large chunks from Roberta Brown's page at 05:47 on 2 April 2013 when 2,998 bytes of information was removed. S/he did so again at 06:11 on that same date when 5,122 bytes of information was removed. Then at 06:12, s/he added a tag saying that perhaps Brown is not notable enough. It was not until 06:16 that day (2 April 2013) that Qworty created a tag and page recommending Roberta Brown for deletion. This pattern suggests an attempt to plant evidence to support his/her attempt. Wikipedian John Pack Lambert mentioned above, "the best I could find was mention in an LA Times article about sword choreography, along with other people involved in that." He then goes on to say that Brown does not meet notability requirements as an ACTOR which Taram admirably addressed above. That said, here are a just a few articles from notable and reputable news sources about Roberta Brown (articles are listed by publication name):
  • The Fightmaster - Summer 2003 http://www.robertabrown.com/pdfs/Fightmaster_summer2003.pdf,
  • The L.A. Times 10/11/96 http://www.robertabrown.com/pdfs/LATimes_061011.pdf,
  • BackstageWest "Arms & the Woman" 9/9/04 http://www.robertabrown.com/pdfs/BSW_040909.pdf,
  • BackstageWest "Punch Lines" 8/14/06 http://www.backstage.com/news/punch-lines/,
  • The Brandeis Review - August 2006 http://www.robertabrown.com/pdfs/Brandeis_060801.pdf,
  • (Deutsche)Job Report - October 2005 http://www.robertabrown.com/pdfs/JobReport_051001.pdf,
  • The L.A. Times 3/10/2000 http://www.robertabrown.com/pdfs/LATimes_2000_0310.pdf,
  • The Telegraph 16 September 2002 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/dietandfitness/4711712/Fence-your-way-to-fitness.html.

Qworty cannot declare articles noted by REVUpminster to be "irrelevant." That is merely his/her opinion. Nothing more and nothing less. There is a great body of work to show that she is one whose opinion IS sought out by others. Thank you for noting that MichaelQSchmidt. I had not seen the ITV presentation on The Story of the Costume Drama. I had heard of it and I remember the day they rode up and down the streets of LA practicing sword fights form a mock chariot. I remember seeing the raw footage and the upset when the cop showed up to ask what they were doing. Roberta is relevant and notable. She has been busy the past few years raising a child as a single mom, but that does not allow one to disregard her earlier body of work. Those who would persistently disrupt articles on gender studies have a much too slanted view to give a forthright appropriate opinion in this matter and it is my opinion that those thoughts need to be discounted. Wordsword1Wordsword1 (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Insufficient sourcing for notability. Wow, some of you people really don't understand how sourcing works. Only ONE of the sources given above is ABOUT her--the LA Times. The others are about other topics and/or mention her only briefly. A single story in the LA Times is never going to be enough to source a Wikipedia article. She fails WP:42: "Articles require SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Qworty (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:42 Irrelevent. It is not policy or a guideline. REVUpminster (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, it combines several policies. Tell us precisely which part of this you personally disagree with: "Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Qworty (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More sources. Clearly notable. Lots of these articles are about her. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such as? Qworty (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such as Los Angeles Times Backstage West and Brandeis Review for instance. And there were others offered above that make a strong case toward her being "notable enough for Wikipedia". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources offered, some in depth, that address the subject directly and in detail... giving us a meeting of the primary notability guideline and allowing the maintenance of an encyclopdiec article. Once the GNG is met, we need not then decide if she fails an SNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You apparently have overlooked:

  Marlowe, J.T. (Summer 2003). "To the Point" (PDF). The Fight Master: 33–34. Retrieved April 6, 2013.

  Simmons, Carrie (August 2006). "Fencer Makes Good Neighbor" (PDF). The Brandeis Review. Retrieved April 6, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me the TV interview in a programme made by a respected third party, ITV, with commentary and interview subtitled as fight director is the biggest notability factor and you only need one. The fact it is on youtube which is only a transmission system for content is irrelevent. I am not new but how do you cite a TV programme. There are templates for web, news, book, and journal but not TV or Radio.REVUpminster (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Roberta Brown biography". TV.com. February 3, 2004. Retrieved April 7, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

"Roberta Brown credits". TV.comm. April 7, 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Does demonstrate some reliable sources.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Just discovered that in 2000 Brown wrote the afterward to Nick and Anita Evangelista's book The Woman Fencer.(Evangelista, Nick. "The Woman Fencer". Print text. Amazon.com/Wish Press. Retrieved 7 April 2013.) The book on history, women's issues in fencing, and techniques in fencing has become a classic in fencing salons in the US. That is because, as in many other sports, women are often marginalized in the fencing world; thousgh, we do know that on the popular front that changed, somewhat, when Mariel Zagunis won fencing gold at the Olympics about a decade ago. Wordsword1Wordsword1 (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Published works

• Evangelista, Nick; Evangelista, Anita; Brown, Roberta (Afterword) (September 1, 2001). The Woman Fencer (Paperback) (1st ed.). Terre Haute, Indiana: Wish Publishing. p. 288. ISBN 1930546483. ISBN 978-1930546486 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to clearly meet notability per sourcing, Sadads (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Women of Action Network-Contributors". Website. Rearden LLC. Retrieved 7 April 2013. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - To echo: Sadads ... "seems to clearly meet notability per sourcing" ... "Talk to Luigi!" Luigibob (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets GNG. SNCKnight (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• SOCK PUPPETRY There has been activity on this page from three blocked socks. The investigation originally concerned the Andrew Helm page, but the same three accounts, Wordsword1 and SNCKnight being puppets of Taram, have argued for keeping this article too, see the strikethrough-entries above. Hst20 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2013 (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.