Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brently Heilbron


 * 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   No consensus. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Brently Heilbron

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Still no real claims of notability. The best that can be said is that he's mentioned in reviews of plays, but an actor in a notable play or movie is not per se notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Keep - I've fixed up the pre-existing refs that I think will qualify for WP:NOTABLE. It's all there, it's just not clean. &mdash;   X   S   G   19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I checked a few of the links.  "Heilbron" doesn't appear, including the critical references [3] (Woody Allen opera) and [4] (Heilbron hosted, according to the artcle, which is not at all the same as "opened" or necessarily notable.)  Vaudeville Heartthrob Recordings is Brently Heilbron, so doesn't add notability as publisher of his tracks.  It's possible that one or more of the links is valid and indicates notability, but odds are against it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Even if some of the links aren't valid for establishing notability, there are now at least four references in which reliable sources talk about Heilbron nearly exclusively. Heilbron should be presumed WP:NOTABLE.  I don't see how it could be argued otherwise. &mdash;   X   S   G   02:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please point to them, then.  Also, as noted above, Vaudeville Heartthrob Recordings is Brently Heilbron, so perhaps there's enough notability between the two for one article.  But I can't say I see evidence of that, either.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * L.A. Times, L.A. City Beat, Austin Chronicle, and Austin Chronicle. Stop being difficult and do your own work. &mdash;   X   S   G   23:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a blog entry, without a clear statement it's being published by the Times, as opposed to merely being hosted. It's also more about Trapped in the Closet than about him.
 * His comentary about (the same) performance. Suggests that the performance is notable, but not about him.
 * One paragraph about him. Do the other dozen or so entries deserve articles?  If so, start writing, but I don't think that qualifies.
 * A review of his performance. I can't even say the performance is notable without knowing the placement; perhaps they (at least, in the online copy) review all performances in the city on that day?  Who knows?
 * Nothing really definite. Looks like 0/6 so far.
 * And you wonder why I don't want to research the references in the article. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Okay, so let me try to capture the spirit of your arguments. When considering general notability:
 * An entry in a major metropolitan newspaper's official arts and entertainment blog that is written by one of that newspaper's staff writers does not constitute a reliable reference.
 * An interview with someone about their own work and independently published does not constitute a reliable reference.
 * A reference in a major metropolitan newspaper's website about someone's upcoming performance, describing them as the superlative performer of that medium in that metropolitan area and also stating that the performer has developed a cult following in that area does not constitute a reliable reference.
 * Does that accurately sum things up? If so, this has all the earmarks of becoming one of Wikipedia's more controversial notability essays.  You should start writing it. &mdash;   X   S   G   02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say it's an "official" arts and entertainment blog, nor that it's written by one of the newspaper's staff writers, nor is it about Brently (it's about the specific performance, which is, and possibly about the performance as a whole.)
 * An intervew by someone about there own work might be notable if it were over a few column-inches. I don't know how many people are given a few inches to talk about their own works in "LA City Beat", but I suspect it's more than we have articles.
 * " reference in a major metropolitan newspaper's website about someone's upcoming performance, describing them as the superlative performer of that medium in that metropolitan area" (which seems inaccurate; Austin is a major metropolitan area, but I'm not convinced the Chronicle is a major newspaper in that area, nor at best, it appears to be saying he's the best stand-up comic in the Austin area in 1999; perhaps evidence of notability, but even it were as you said, doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER, which seems the appropriate notability guideline.)
 * Next? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And since you're obviously familiar with all of L.A. Times' web properties, you're the expert to say that it's not, right? Except that ... Soundboard is L.A. Times' offical music blog, and the author of the article, listed right at the bottom of the cited article, is easily identified as an L.A. Times staff writer if you perform a subsequent search.  My point is that you have not done your homework, and in order to distract from this, you attempt to poke holes in my homework.  You admit yourself that you don't know what LA City Beat contains, and you indicate that therefore it must be some sort of rag of ill repute, at least until someone conclusively proves that it isn't.  You demonstrate the very nature of bad faith, and this from an English Wikipedia Admin?  For shame. &mdash;   X   S   G   20:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if your claims as to the reliablity of the sources are correct, you have not demonstrated notability. My secondary notes on each part give adequate justification to show that they do not indicate notability:
 * The LA Times blog indicates the performance may be notable. No indication that we don't have WP:BLP1E.
 * LA City Beat is clearly not reliable, although it may be notable. And it's natural to interview the performer about a notable performance even if the performer is not otherwise notable.  (And it is pretty short for an interview.  At best, I'd call that a modified review.)
 * (and 4): Even if the Austin Chronicle were a real newspaper, is being the "best" standup comic in Austin in 1999 even an indication of notability.  (That's really all it says.)
 * No, I really don't think we have it here, although I now think he may deserve a paragraph in Trapped in the Closet, so perhaps a redirect would be more appropriate. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Although I don't see notability, I request this be kept open so that the editors finding sources have to time to find some which actually support the statements they're making.  I think (as of 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)), almost all the verification tags are in place, although the question of whether a calendar entry (which is all many of the remaining sources are) is a reliable source for anything other than a planned appearance is questionable, as even reputable publications accept the publicist's statement as to the source of the material.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I object to keeping it open any longer. AfDs are for five days.  Here we are on our 9th day.  We have one vote for keep and no official votes for delete, though one might assume that the nomination equates to a vote for delete.  At worst, this should be closed with no consensus, though I believe it should be closed keep. &mdash;   X   S   G   22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Compare the number of sources to the number of verification request tags in the article. The majority of the article is unsourced, or the sources fail verification.  A rational person would see there is, as yet, no properly sourced proof of notability, although I now believe it may be possible.  Also, the article has been actively edited during the last 5 days, anyway, once I started tagging the bad references.  Perhaps, in another week, it will be relatively stable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see a great deal of name-dropping, but few decent references (if any) in support of very little identifiable notability or reason for notice. In other words, this doesn't appear to be documenting importance at all, but rather attempting to promote it. When the subject is ready for an article, perhaps someone will be able to unambiguously make the case, but not today, not at all. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   20:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I'm not seeing the notability per WP:ENTERTAINER nor am I finding enough stuff that covers the subject in a significant and non-trivial manner independent of said subject. He may be up and coming or something but, I'm not seeing it yet. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by XSG. The argument against them seems to be that articles about the subject's performances are not about the subject, which is simply ridiculous. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles about the subject's performances which don't mention the subject are not about the subject. (And being mentioned only in a picture caption doesn't count.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the articles linked by XSG above do mention the subject, and not only in a picture caption. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * False. Read the articles.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Arthur, I want to be civil and respectful toward you, I really do. Because I was giving your sanity the benefit of the doubt, I just went back to read the articles.  Each one of them clearly identifies Brently Heilbron as the subject.  I don't understand how you can say black is white, but that's what you've been doing all along, here.  Sadly, I can no longer give your sanity the benefit of the doubt.  Your arguments border on the ridiculous, and I'm not the first to point it out.  I told you on October 3rd to stop being difficult and do your own work.  You haven't.  You improperly put this article up for AfD on September 29th.  The article was finally listed on October 6th.  It is now October 15th GMT, so here we are on the ninth official day of a deletion discussion that has lasted seventeen days.  My conclusion: you are either insane or you exhibit bad faith.  This marathon deletion discussion needs to be closed and now.  I'll take a No consensus. &mdash;   X   S   G   02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.