Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani Brubaker

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. asilvering (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Brubaker

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notablity not established; article appears to be wp:promo. Her name does appear in published sources but only in captions for her photography. The one piece of writing I found about her was about winning an honorable mention on pr.com, which is just a press release, not a published article. Yuchitown (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I saw this a few days ago while patrolling the NPP feed, and questioned the notability. She is a working commercial photographer who makes some very nice photographs, however she not a notable photographer per WP criteria for WP:NARTIST nor the general notability guideline. She lived in two houses that have been written about, and she took some controversial photographs of a young girl. The sourcing consists of her own website, some blogs or blog-like coverage mostly about the young girl, or about her two houses. Other sources include a self-published Lulu "book", and photo caption mentions. This is not the type of in-depth significant coverage needed for an encyclopedia article; she does not have the type of track record that we normally see for a notable photographer. The article seems to be WP:PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Photography, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Architecture, and California. Netherzone (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Source analysis does not show notability. I am not finding any better sources on the internet. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.danibrubaker.com/biography			photographer's own website	✘ No
https://www.remodelista.com/posts/updated-historic-casita-galisteo-new-mexico-for-sale/			article about the purcase and renovation of real estate on a real estate site.	✘ No
https://thejasminebrand.com/2011/08/07/is-a-10-year-old-model-wearing-no-shirt-or-heels-too-sexy/			article about Thylane Blondeau	✘ No
https://www.who.com.au/entertainment/most-beautiful-girl-in-the-world-who-is-thylane-blondeau/	?	?	article about Thylane Blondeau	✘ No
https://www.jezebel.com/fashion-industry-salivates-over-creepy-photos-of-10-yea-5827092			article about Thylane Blondeau	✘ No
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/thylane-loubry-blondeau-mother_n_919501			article about Thylane Blondeau's mother	✘ No
https://anneofcarversville.com/body-politics/2011/8/3/thylane-lena-rose-blondeau-a-supermodel-in-the-making.html			article about Thylane Blondeau	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=M1RwDwAAQBAJ	?	?	Google books listing for Britney Spears Is Coming-back! with no mention of Brubaker	✘ No
https://www.today.com/popculture/britney-her-own-best-publicist-wbna22715757			article about Britney Spears' children	✘ No
https://people.com/celebrity/sag-awards-2016-celebrities-in-peoples-photo-booth/			promotion of PEOPLE's Photo Booth with photo credit for Brubaker	✘ No
https://www.billboard.com/music/rb-hip-hop/ciara-new-album-baby-bump-harpers-bazaar-interview-7717081/			photo credit for Brubaker	✘ No
https://www.interviewmagazine.com/photographers/dani-brubaker			portfolio for Interview magazine	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep - Thank you for the feedback. I found the book and it's not a self-published. It appears to be someone who is inspired by her work. I have also found sources related to photos she took of Britney Spears in 2009. I have not added the sources yet as I am still reading over them as some appear to be contentious, so I am being cautious as what is sourced. I am not related in any form to the artist, so I can attest it is not a WP:PROMO as suggested. This article is within the scope of WP:VISUALARTS; WP:NEWMEXICO; along with several others. I would kindly ask you to reconsider and assist me with the page. I am new to Wiki editing, so would this better suited for WP:DRAFT?
Coolhandluke2022 (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Today articles are about Brubaker allegedly selling photos of Spear's children, later revealed by the same source, Article on Today.comSpears sold the photos herself during her public meltdown. The article is about Brubaker. Coolhandluke2022 (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lulu.com book is self published by the person who wrote it - Lulu is a self-publishing platform, not a reliable publishing house. Netherzone (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you for clarifying. Coolhandluke2022 (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The PR.com article seems to be all there is; I don't find anything else. Not listed in the Getty ULAN [1], so delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK to delete for now, but concur with earlier post that Dani Brubaker's biggest claim to fame in terms of secondary coverage is related to photographs she took of Britney Spears in 2007. At first, it was rumored that Dani had put the photos up for sale against Britney's wishes as explained in this article on Today.com, but a later article in the same publication, "Britney is her own best publicist", claimed that Britney herself had been behind the sale of the "beautiful" photographs all along. In the end, it seems like a non-story and hardly seems like the main thing Dani Brubaker would want to be known for (particularly since along the way, it was suggested that Britney was planning to file a lawsuit against her). A further point is that it's not just photo credits; Brubaker also appears to have written at least one article in 2018 for Marie Claire. She is also mentioned in passing in this article, "Kids' Photography, Coming of Age" in Photo District News. All in all, it's just not quite enough to satisfy Wikipedia criteria for notability at this time. That said, given her strong portfolio as a celebrity photographer, it would not be surprising if Dani Brubaker does receive coverage about her life and work in the future; and if this coverage is in independent, reliable secondary sources (please see WP:RELIABLESOURCES), it would help satisfy the Wikipedia criteria for notability (please see WP:GNG). (And if #TeamDani is reading this, worth having a read of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY as well.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of deleting would you consider WP:NOTJUSTYET Coolhandluke2022 (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow that link, it goes to Wikipedia:Too soon. Please read it. Such articles are deleted, but if/when the subject becomes more notable in real life a new article could be created in the future. As Cielquiparle recommends, please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. All these links explain Wikipedia's policies. Yuchitown (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolhandluke2022, I've twice now had to move your comments because they either split another editors comment, or because it was threaded incorrectly. Please be mindful of this in the future. Thanks, Netherzone (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Netherzone. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2024 (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.