Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Brushwood


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Brian Brushwood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable stage musician claiming fame for having obscure shows on two microscopic "podcast networks" that barely meet notability standards themselves, and for having been on the Tonight Show once. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Brushwood is on 2 different shows, a Audio Podcast and a IP-TV show. Your argument that these are microscopic networks is a joke.  The This Week in Tech network is not microscopic in any sense of the word.  Revision3 is a Internet Tevelision network, just as you would compare any of the other TV networks. Hasteur (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If you delete based on the above comment then you have to delete the Barack Obama entry because he was a nobody Chicago politician who got elected to congress one time and never voted on any legislation and somehow ended up as a do nothing President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.151.93 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep --FiveIron (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm going to see a lot of sockpuppetry in here, but the subject is not notable, the article and its main contributor seems to have COI, which may afflict its neutrality and may compromise its maintenance. Article fails WP:BIO and also fails WP:NWEB. Eduemoni↑talk↓  22:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that we'll see sockpuppetry? Perhaps Brushwood just has a very engaged audience?  Would you cry foul on engaged audience members of Bill O'Riley standing up and advocating against deletion?  Please indicate which editor you feel is COI to Brushwood or strike your assertion.  I've listened to the show myself and do not recognize any of the editors so far.  I as an editor and listener did reach out after the page was REFUNDED and asked Brushwood to comment on the talk page so that we can try to improve the article via the approved method of subject helping correct/improve via suggestions. Hasteur (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep And go ahead  and challenge me on being a sock puppet.  Subject has been on many different talk shows like Jennny Jones.  Significant artist in the digital media space (This Week in Tech network doing upwards of 10 million in revenue a year with NSFW show being their #3 show and Revision3's Scam School doing many video recordings a year.  Just because these aren't traditional broadcast media doesn't make them microscopic podcast networks.  Would you make The Nerdist a microsocopic podcast network?  Being invited to host one of the standing fun houses at the Universal Floridia "Nights of Terror" is also indicative of GNG. Hasteur (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum Comment And further, Brushwood has been invited to perform his magic act at many different college campuses as part of a student activities event. This is indicative in my mind that Brushwood easily clears the GNG threshold.  Would it be good to have more and independent sources?  Sure, but Deletion's not Cleanup.  Now I assert that Orangemike's hostile tagging and then taking this immediately to AfD after it had recently come back via REFUND is nothing more than POINTY behavior.  Surely there's an unreferenced BLP that needs more attention than this... Hasteur (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, Hasteur, I did not by any chance declared that you were a sockpuppet, but the article doesn't establish GNG, there is lack of significant coverage, if the campuses would have interviewed him and posted in the internet, which in fact they didn't, being a successful and rich person, or tallented does not establish and assert notability., , there is only mentions, podcasts, social profiles and interview with non notable shows. The article and subject may have potential, but I think it is too early  WP:NOTNOW . And Hauster you are not even the article's main contributor, the article has several intrinsic details which a person close to him or himself would have written, since the article lacks references. And I've search and found that the article has accurate details about the subject.<b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 00:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Brushwood would qualify (or not) under WP:ENTERTAINER. Probably #2, significant cult following. The fact he has appeared on major national TV shows such as The Tonight Show (twice) suggests a following strong enough to convince the producers of those shows to let him on. Plus his own shows through major channels. At the same time we need to satisfy WP:GNG because right now there is basically no sourcing. Some suggestions include SecularStudents, HuffingtonPost, GeekSphere, TVWeek, PBS, Collegian. These are individually weak sources, though appropriate for the subject, but in whole I believe they add up to support WP:ENTERTAINER #2 and they contain significant biographical coverage to write a Wikipedia article with. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable, fails WP:ENTERTAINER, absolutely does not meet WP:GNG.  GregJackP   Boomer!   03:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs work, but I believe the subject meets WP:GNG. Not currently included in the article is that the subject has had a #1 comedy album on the Billboard charts, and was a co-creator of a book which reached the top 5 of the iTunes book charts. Billboard, NPR's On The Media, Gizmodo. Brendonsmall (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — Brendonsmall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You have raised a good point, however these are not significant, he would have passed WP:MUSICBIO if he had a single or album in any significant chart, but he is an entertainer not a musician, he doesn't apply to MUSICBIO, and he also fails WP:CREATIVE. I think the subject has wp:potential, but lacks enough sufficient and significant coverage. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 10:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please strike your SPA assertion against Brendonsmall. It's entirely possible that they could have been an IP address or not even an editor for a long time and know the Rules for Deletion discussions.  Furthermore, I don't see a deliberate attempt to sway consensus by invoking the "Arugments to avoid in AfD discussions" list so if anything your behavior seems deliberately antagonistic, Bite-y, and not collegial. Hasteur (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You, sire, offended me, first of all, he is an editor which has only two edits post AfD creation, I didn't bite him, secondly I'm not disrupting the discussion to make a point, you own me an apology, your words does not truly reflect my actions, and third, stick to the discussion, avoid bringing personal offenses or matters into an AfD, if you can't illustrate a point, refrain yourself from the discussion, I have made mine, the subject is non notable and I have also gave the reason why. Any source provided so far is passing, trivial and non significant. You also said that you asked Brushwood personally to come to the talk page for suggestion and improvement, which is why I stated a COI, the article has many unsourced statements which seems purely promotional, it violates NPOV, it is not as of yet unambiguously promotional, this could be improved, but his notability is the reason why his article right now shouldn't be maintained. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 11:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously you're only reading into your own viewpoint into this discussion and only want to delete a page that meets GNG. WP:COISELF and WP:COIU are very clear how to invite subjects to help correct issues with their page.  The goal is to improve the page, not bar people who probably have the best collection of sources from even helping.  If it were in order to whale you, I'd do it right now.  Since you're refusing, and I'm a editor in good standing, I'm striking your SPA assertion. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I restored the SPA tag. The editor in question has exactly 2 edits, both to this AfD discussion, and clearly meets the definition of a single purpose account.  It is up to the closing admin to evaluate whether a) he is a SPA, and b) how much weight to give to his arguments if he is a SPA.  Being labelled as a SPA does not negate his comments or position, it merely flags it as an issue for the closing admin to consider.   GregJackP   Boomer!   13:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * , I didn't bite the editor, and even though COISELF and COIU guide on how to invite subject, the article fails NPOV, thus it has conflict of interest, statements such as "highly produced episodes of Scam School on Revision3", "best known for his display of bizarre magic and fire-eating performances" are both unsourced and highly promotional. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 17:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep He meets GNG for coverage on his involvement with a top-selling ebook (as seen on Gizmodo, appearances on The Tonight Show and CNN, his TED Talk, his high-profile podcasts Scam School and NSFW on Revision3 and TWiT.tv (both of which have been featured as iTunes Top Podcasts), and has been seen by over 70 million people on Indonesian TV. --PatrickD (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep article needs attention, but don't think is worthy of deletion. Notability is established, but some changes are needed in order to keep NPOV and include properly sourced information. (→ Zachary ) 07:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - How can we include proper sources if I brought to this discussion that the subject lacks substantial coverage, he has no significant coverage so far from reliable sources. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 21:01, 26 August 2013 (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.