Talk:Brandi Brandt

brie howard

if she's the daughter of someone famous, why isn't this even MENTIONED? 173.9.95.217 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Brandie Brandt

This person was initially notable for one thing and has since done more to become more notable. It is common practice to include such info on the lead. See Gary Glitter, Jimmy Savile among others. This is sourced information and there is precedent for it in the lead. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of "convicted felon" if it meets the "notability" criteria stated in WP:PERP:

"The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

The reference that you've provided does not indicate an "unusual" or "noteworthy" motivation or execution of Ms. Brandt's importing drugs which led to her conviction. Nor does the reference indicate that her conviction is a "well-documented historic event" that has "persit[ed] beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to" her role as an illegal drugs importer (or drug smuggler).

If you can provide references which meet the criteria of the preceding paragraph, then I would support the inclusion of "convicted felon" in the introductory paragraph.

As for your citing of Gary Glitter and Jimmy Saville to support your position, I agree that their notorious acts should be included in the opening paragraphs. The references support inclusions in opening paragraphs because they reach the standard of "notability" stated in WP:PERP; that is, each are well-documented historic events that have persisted beyond contemporaneous news coverage to which significant attention has been devoted.

If the "notability" standard set in WP:PERP included merely "contemporaneous news coverage" and nothing more, then I would agree with your position; however, the "notability" standard is more rigorous.Television fan (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That;s a standard for a standalone article therefore your argument doesn't hold water, she was notable before and this added to that notability. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And what is the Wikipedia reference or source which supports the basis of your argument that the definition of "notability" applies to new articles only and not to existing articles? Please provide a Wikipedia source.Television fan (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For fucks sake, can't you understand I'm not saying that's the only thing she's notable for? You are linking to a policy regarding an article creation and whether or not to have separate article or an article at all on a person notable for one event unless it meets a few criteria. She is obviously notable for more then that but now she also has a greater notability in a few countries now for drug smuggling. It's sourced so it's not a BLP violation. Hell in a Bucket (talk)

I know that you are defining "notable" to mean something along the lines of "unusual and worth noticing," that her conviction adds to her notability, and that this additional notability makes apt to include in the intro paragraph of WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. That's fine, but your personal definition or another's personal definition of what "notability" means does not fall within the definition developed by Wikipedia. In the end, it is that definition that has been developed by Wikipedia that governs.

I've been respectful to you, taking the time to lay out Wikipedia standards and applying the facts to those standards. Your tone towards me is noted. Be good and take care of yourself Hell in a Bucket.Television fan (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's worth mentioning in the lede, it's worth a direct statement, not an uninformative label. "In 2014, she was convicted of drug trafficking charges in Australia and imprisoned." At least as worthy of inclusion in the lede as a description of a not-that-noteworthy magazine cover. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

TBBW, I agree with the form of your statement; however, a statement about Ms. Brandt's conviction does not belong in the intro paragraph under the standard set forth in WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, a standard that includes an element of "notability" for the intro paragraph. "Notability" is defined in WP:PERP, and Ms. Brandt's conviction does not meet the definition of "notability" as I've discussed above.Television fan (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a day then implement my changes with HB suggestions unless another editor comes forward to disagree. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Per the comments above, removed the "not-that-noteworthy magazine cover" phrase from the introduction section. Created new section for that content. Also, created new sub-section title for her criminal involvement. Now, although her criminal activity does not rise to the level of "notability" as defined in WP:PERP and required by WP:OPENPARAGRAPH for an intro paragraph, her criminal activity is visible in the table of contents immediately following the intro paragraph.Television fan (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)