Talk:Brooke Brodack

This template is being used in the wrong namespace. To nominate this talk page for deletion, go to Miscellany for deletion.

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Knocking it back to Start class. Needs inline cites and some cleanup (esp. the lengthy opening section) to warrant a B.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 01:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Other deletions

Other people, myself included, have tried to make wikis about popular youtubers. They have been deleted within seconds of them being put onto the site. One of the administrators said, I quote: What the hell is h doing maing wikis about people like that "there are 85.3 billion other people who put videos on youtube" (she/ he does not realize only 60 billion live in this world). This user should be no exception. She uses youtube to get to fame than gets a wiki made by her? Last I checked she isn't famous. 3/4 of the UK do not know who she is, even people in Africa know who Madonna is. Sorry but she's had her 15 MEGABYTES of fame... doesn't the Wiki server cost around $700,000? I have no "beef" with her, there are even more famous youtubers, brookers ranks fourth, yet they do not have their own Wiki.--{{subst:js|User:Lupin/recent2.js}} 23:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, only about 6 or 7 billion people live in the world. But Brookers is a quite famous and notable YouTuber! --Nevhood 23:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I suggest you do a google search of her name, you will find that she is the top result with quite a few news stories. I have included references for one of those - soon to be expanded. Wikipedia:Notability (memes) states that a person who is only associated with their meme should be included on the meme page. This is not the case for Brooke however, she has been given a job by Carson Daly (as stated in the article) which has earned her more than a few news stories. Viridae^Talk 01:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

She has only been signed on for 'Talent expantion and training'. One article stated she was going to be doing web-based clips for MTV if certain conditions were met. There are many other MTV talents that do not have mention here on Wiki, and I do not believe she passes the cut.--Bschott 18:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Oh my... what has Wikipedia become... has much as I like her, there is 0 reason to give her an article here!!!

• She's an internet phenomena, has a huge fanbase and has just been signed for a television development deal so she might actually become a tv persona before to soon. So yeah, I think she merits a inclusion. It's not like anyone plastered on Youtube is featured here, but she is something of a break out talent and has made history in a way in which she is the first person ever to starting up her professional career exclusively through this media. (Djungelurban 16:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC))

• She was just featured in a Calendar article of the Los Angeles Times. I believe this meets all notability requirements. Hbdragon88 19:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Talent? Are you sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xzamuel (talk • contribs)

Prod for Deletion

A quick google hit search does not return many hits (less than 1000), and she has been featured in only 2-3 small articles. A 'calandar article' of the LA Times newspaper is boarderline, as pets have been featured in there. Does that make them notable? As a notable person, there should be many more articles written over a span of time...not a 'flash in the pan' such as we see here.--Bschott 18:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"There are more than just the LA Times article:

USA Today Article:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-17-digital-download-youtube_x.htm

Boston Globe Article:

http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2006/06/27/the_self_made_star/

The Landmark Article:

http://www.thelandmark.com/news/2006/0706/Front_Page/004.html

Radio interview:

http://www.blogherald.com/2006/07/14/youtube-star-brookers-radio-interview/

--Dave 22:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I still believe that she is not notable. Wiki should not list every flash-in-the-pan, 15-minutes-of-fame person.

Because of this, I am nomiating this article for deletion, However I would be inclined to think this article could be possibly merged with the main YouTube Page.--Bschott 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if you got less than 1000 hits, I'm guessing you googled "Brooke Brodack". Try searching on brookers youtube, and the results are much more impressive. --Iustinus 21:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Broderick

Her last name is Broderick, not Brodack. It's even explicitly stated in one of her videos. >_>; --Thrashmeister 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it really is Brodack. She did use the name "Broderick" in one video, back in December, when she was still a semi-anonymous YouTuber; at that time, it made sense for her not to reveal her real last name (just like she did not reveal it on her MySpace page, either). It was revealed publicly revealed only in June, when an article announcing her Carson Daly deal appeared in _Variety_. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grodzins (talk • contribs)

Insane !

We have millions of American parents worried about what their progeny are doing on MySpace and here is a possibly genius 20-year-old who not only can show the way, open doors and minds, but who will most likely survive her 15 minutes, and someone wants to delete her from WP as "not relevant" ... ? Give me a break already ! Give her space ! jamonbojamonbo

Wiki is NOT for listing every person that has 15 minutes of fame. Outside of YouTube, most Americans have no idea who she is. I could understand a merge with the YouTube main article or a merge with a YouTube Celebrity page but she is not notable for her own article. She wouldn't appear in a printed encyclopedia as a seperate entity.--Bschott 13:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a printed article and therefore does not have the same space limitations. Viridae^Talk 13:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, outside of YouTube most Americans have no idea who she is. I could understand a merge with the YouTube main article or a merge with a YouTube Celebrity page but she is not notable for her own article. She is not front page news, merited national TV coverage, or is a commonly known name or topic of conversation. People on the street would not know who she is. --Bschott 13:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor would the man in the street be able to name many if any of the people in the non celebrity section of List of Internet phenomena. Viridae^Talk 14:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On the internet, outside of YouTube, no one really knows who she is. She is a YouTube celeb, but not notable beyond that yet. If you drop her name on Fark.com, Slashdot, or any of the other widely popular forms or sites, she is just not notable enough for people to know who she is. --Bschott 14:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything to back that up? Considering the news coverage she got, you can assume that more than a few people have heard of her. Also remember that YouTube has a traffic rank of 17 (alexa) fark has one of 736 and slashdot has a rank of 165. So someone who has risen to stardom amongst the YouTube community is more than likely to have been noticed by people who frequent other high traffic forums. I think considering the high profile of YouTube and the "first" nature of her contract that it is highly unlikely that Fark and slashdot users are unaware of her existence. (which is actually beside the point, she has had significant news coverage and fark and slashdot are not a measure of someones popularity - they create more short bursts of activity than anything else I know of) Viridae^Talk 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I always love the "most people have no idea who she is" argument for notability. Have you heard of William Takacs? I'm pretty sure most people haven't either. Yet in his field he's notable. Same goes for this girl. IN HER FIELD she's notable. --Brother William 01:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

---I agree with Bschott. Until she breaks out of the label of "Famous Youtube User," she is not worth the space. I'm not going by the "conract" with Carson Daily, because it's not a final thing. Contracts can be broken. We should let an admin know and see what he/she thinks, though. Human historian 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not up to an admin to decide the notability. The article doesnt fit into any of the requirements for a speedy deletion, so Bschott has taken it to AfD. It is there that a concencus will try to be made. Viridae^Talk 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for deletion by an admin. Just an opinion. There isn't a whole lot of need-to-know information, about her, so I don't think this article is a worthy cause. At the moment, she is like the other famous youtube users. Human historian 06:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, yes, the article is not merited. She might become something noteworthy in herself in time, but she's not there yet. (I'd put money on it happening, but it's still the future.) However, in the context of a historical view of the colossal change of media, Brookers, with her cross-media jump and, more importantly, her validation of online video as a proving grounds for media talent, represents a pivotal figure. I really mean no offense when I say this: I find it a bit ironic that a "Human Historian" would argue against the noteworthiness of such a figure. Really. Anyway, she, as the aforementioned media phenomenon, deserves a note in at least the YouTube article. There's my opinion. 63.249.64.32 03:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you can try putting any mention of her on the YouTube article itself, but the community concensus is 'Famous Users' shouldn't be there. Look at the talk page and history. Anytime she is added, she is immediately removed and the general concensus is she isn't noteworthy to be on the page. Why she is noteworthy enough to get her own page is beyond me, however there is a merger proposal happening right now that may combine Brookers and Em's pages together into a 'Famous YouTube Users' article and then add in other well known users. So far the concenus on that is 'go with the merger' so the ADF here is pointless as this page may not exist much longer anyway...since it's looking like it will be merged.--Bschott 03:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much that I'm against mention of her. I just don't think she has enough need-to-know info to have her own page. I don't see what that's ironic. But you all know where I stand on this, so whatever happens, happens. Human historian 06:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Milestone

Brooke Brodack is the FIRST YouTuber to get a contract from Hollywood. This is a milestone--a piece of showbiz history in and of itself--and so makes her worthy of at least a short entry. Also, the publicity given her is quite extensive, and so curiosity about her is quite high, and the Wikipedia should respond to that. If you look on Google News, you'll see that the articles on her in _Variety_, the LA _Times_, and the _Globe_ have been extensively reprinted, including in the foreign press; her story has also been reported NPR, _USA Today_, and in the _Wall Street Journal_ (where she's described as THE "crossover star").

Oh be quiet, you rambling idiot.

And where is she now? I don't see her anywhere on actual television. And newspapers are dying for something to wrtie about, (90% of newspapers/magazines is "how are we going to fill up all this space?") so I'm not impressed that she's had articles written about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.252.145 (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger

There has been discussion of Merging all the Notable YouTube users into one article. This will 1)allow easy searching for those researching YouTube users 2)create an article that has more depth and is less likely to be removed 3)Create a centralized location for future notables and past notables. This Merger is being suggested on all individual YouTube user articles.--Bschott 00:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not support the merger. Sure make a list of them or include a synopsis. But Brookers is bigger than all of the rest, considering the coverage she has got. Viridae^Talk 02:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A list has already been made (YouTube#Fame_beyond_YouTube). I can't see why this is any less notable then for example Torchic, an article which was featured. Someone please explain this to me. -CRouleau 17:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I still have yet to see her somewhere other than youtube. I support the merger.

Try the mentioned, CBS or NBC or whatever run www.itsyourshow.com Viridae^Talk 20:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Contract And Other Thoughts

A contract can be broken by both parties. I think it's too soon to give her a stand-alone article. Then saying that she is the first person to get a Hollywood contract thru YouTube is a bold statement, everything dosen't end up in the newspapers or on TV see! I bet there is other people getting a foot into the business as I write this, and even before Brooke, but maybe they are laying low (I'm talking about: musicians, designers, actors, comedians, cameramen, writers etc etc etc). And until she is aired for the first time on public TV or cable, she dosen't need her own article. And there is not enought need-to-know info about her yet. And as the article look right now it seems it's written by "fans", if you know what i mean. I dont have anything against her personally, but this article just seems to be unecessary right now......And remeber we are 6,5 billion people on this planet (that's a hell alot of people!) and if you put that in the perspective of getting like 2 million hits (also remeber that people click on the clips over and over again so that means that it's not 2 million hits watched by tha same amount of people, but maybe only 1 - 1,5 million that have seen the clip, see what I'm saying!) on YouTube it is hardly even detecteble......It's too soon friends....She's not there....YET!

Redirect

I have reverted the redirect to the notable youtube users article because I believe 1. this wasn't done with enough discussion - especially considering the AfD and the discussion above and 2. I believe she warrants her own article.

She derives her notability solely from YouTube, not from anywhere else. The article in question is an attempt to merge them together to show people who have had significant media coverage in their own countries, of which she appears to be one. There's no point in having her own article - rather it should be part of the YouTube page. (JROBBO 05:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

Her notability is now coming from her involvement with the new website as well as her youtube appearances. She has recieved a significant amount of press coverage and so (look at the afd) it was decided that she warranted her own article, unlike many of the others. Viridae^Talk 06:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Someone removed the external links to Brodack's YouTube and Myspace profiles, citing Wikipedia's policy on external links. I have placed both links back, as I do not believe they violate the policy. While the external links policy states that links to sites which fail to provide licensing information should be avoided, it also states that, "Except where noted, this list does not override the list of what should be linked. For example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked even if it contains factually inaccurate material." The restored link to Brodack's YouTube profile does not link to any particular video clip for which licensing information is not provided. Brodack became famous on YouTube, and YouTube is the primary reason this article exists. Unless Wikipedia institutes a blanket policy of prohibiting any links to YouTube (which would include removing the link to the YouTube homepage from the external links section of the article on YouTube itself), the link to Brodack's YouTube profile should remain here. Likewise, Myspace in general may have a problem with people using copyrighted material without permission, and the Wikipedia external links policy may discourage links to personal blogs, but Brodack is in Wikipedia because she is an Internal Phenomena, and failing to provide a relevant link to her personal blog on the internet doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Again, the link to her Myspace is not a link to any particular content on Myspace with a copyright in dispute, and unless there is a blanket policy not to link to Myspace under any circumstance, the link in this case is relevant and appropriate.

YouTube links

Info icon

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message on the talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material violating someone's copyright. If you are not sure whether the link on this article should be removed or if you would like to help spread this message, contact us on User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 00:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is one of the exceptions, as the subject of the article is the person producing the videos that the article is linking to. Viridae^Talk 03:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. There is actually a Brookers article on a foreign language wiki

I cant beleive this;its a video blog after all. Youtube has truly reached the pinnacle. Viva la revolution!

And Turkish of all languages! --Iustinus 22:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As the starter of the Turkish article, Turkish users are too much on YouTube but they doesn't know YouTube celebrities too much. Also now she is on other languages. OnurT^contribs 22:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

CRAZED NUMA FANS series.

Uhh, this one guy made a #2 Numa fan, and that started off a chain reaction. Now there are two more, #3 and #4, (There are two #4's, I personally think the one from AARONDUDE123 sucks.). Should this be noted on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.121.137 (talk • contribs)

I'm not convinced that meets notability standards. As much as I think she did excellent work with lip-synching (an extremely rare phenomenon), a better focus might be original content like Chips. Peter Grey 00:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Information about videos made by fans in response to Brodack's work isn't notable unless the response videos receive some kind of wider attention, or unless Brodack specifically reacts to the response. I don't see how adding information about response videos that haven't received widespread attention would provide anything meaningful or interesting to an encyclopedia reader looking for information about Brodack.

Needs inline citations

They're a pain, but someone needs to get on it. Ichormosquito 18:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

USA Today interview with Brookers about her haters

So, is it notable for the article? OnurT^contribs 23:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Ichormosquito 20:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Tautological. Now there's a word.

"Brodack has been mistaken for a young male boy repeatedly" As opposed to a non-male boy?

194.46.187.196 23:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Scoliosis

On her recent videos of her QuietRiot account, Brooke revealed that she has scoliosis. OnurT^contribs 16:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You spend too much tim eon the internet. Nobody cares about her, let's get this article deleted immediantly.214.13.192.187 (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Neuturality dispute

User:Apelike put an {{npov}} tag on the article earlier this month [1]. However, they didn't state why the tag is there. If there isn't a reason in the next few days, I'm going to remove it as a test edit. -w^{L<speak·check>} 07:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)