Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Edwards (author)


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 10:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Brian Edwards (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was deleted in 2014, see Articles for deletion/Brian Edwards (celebrity talent executive). Winning an "honorary award" has not suddenly made this person notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Thank you for posting the deletion debate, I had not read this before. Of course, a lifetime achievement award from one of America's most prestigious film awards is a little bit more important than you are letting on. And is directly in line for what qualifies someone for a Wikipedia page. Either way, as I said before: This article is not a replication of any previous article. Just having a previous deletion does not allow something to be deleted under this category. I have no idea who wrote the previous articles, but this individual is the winner of a lifetime achievement award from the Satellite Awards, which qualifies him under clause one of WP:ANYBIO, which states that someone is notable if they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor". This person also qualifies under WP:GNG, as there are plenty of in depth articles about him that have been used to cite this piece. Please don't try to skirt Wikipedia policy just to get your way :) Usterday (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even bring in the writing awards and multiple producer-ships. I've read and re-read the deletion debate now that it is reposted, and I don't know what was up here before, but none of the comments match up to the current page. Usterday (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - It seems to me that the destiny of that article is linked to whether the Satellite Award is "well-known and significant". I tend to think it does not; the talk page raises some doubts but I could not check them. Tigraan (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I voted for deletion of the previous article exactly for this reason, Tigraan. I still can't find  convincing evidence that a Satellite award confers notability. Jacona (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I find 0 press coverage of the award, the book is published by a Vanity press, and the rest of the article is no different than the previous attempt. Passing mentions, non WP:RS sources.  The only reasonably close RS was the New Orleans bit, but that didn't really have enough detail to count for much on notability, and it sounded like it was written from a press release (the author covers society stories in a small suburban area, so she really doesn't add much credence either). John from Idegon (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Seems like I missed this. Either way, I have a question. If the Satellite Award is non-notable, why does this exist: Category:Satellite Awards? (I have to use single brackets so the Cats show up here and not at the bottom; search them and you'll see how extensive they are fixed that for you John from Idegon (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC) ). The category is in the Template:Film awards as well, along with all other notable national awards. Pointing to the poorly written Satellite Awards page is just bad research, if you are using Wikipedia as the sole point of reference. I mean, ever single ceremony has its own page: Category:Satellite Awards ceremonies. If that's not notable, really, what is? A single win under AnyBio makes the person notable. Period. Though I agree that the "author" title is probably bad, as he's not really a notable author at all. That I don't like. But all this nonsense about claiming that a Satellite Award isn't good enough for ANYBIO seems silly to me. Especially if it is a lifetime achievement award. That's likely the most important award they give out, no? If a Satellite Award isn't so important, we should next delete the template and the categories. No non-notable award should EVER EVER have that kind of presence on Wikipedia!!! Yogi Beara (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * COMMENT -I am guessing your comment is directed at the nominator, but my arguments were not speaking of the awards in general, just the particular award he was given. Kinda flies in the face of logic that an award given by a press association to a publicist got no press, doesn't it? It was not awarded at their award ceremony but at a private gathering. I don't think it is on the level of the actual awards at all. Add to that the basic dishonesty of titling the article "(author)", when his only book was published by a vanity press and it makes you wonder what the actual motivation for this vaguely defined lifetime achievement award actually was. I still hold that if no one talked about the award in a reliable source, it has no value to show notability. without that, there is nothing in the article to show notability at all. John from Idegon (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keepfor reasons cited by Yogi Beara.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * weak keep - rename? I looked at each of the references. #1 is a press release (not RS). #2 cannot establish editorial status of Slidell Independent #3, #11 IP award site - and I'd say that the award is significant. #5, #6, #9 - mentions, not RS. #7 about him, local paper but probably RS. #10, just separate page of photos from awards. His book is self-published and is not held in ANY libraries that show in Worldcat. So, I think he barely passes as a publicist with one award and one weak RS. The award seems significant within his field, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. However, he cannot be billed as an author since there is no evidence that his book was ever reviewed (not even Publisher's Weekly). "(Publicist)" is what he's called in the articles and the award. LaMona (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I could concur with the rename as I had not realized the book was self-published. I stand by the WP:ANYBIO clause though, as there are plenty of people who have received ANYBIO qualifying awards that could not pass GNG, even if I believe this person can. A Satellite Award is similar to the other major US film awards, and as in-depth coverage is rare for every single win on every single awards show every year, if that were required for an ANYBIO award to ever count as asserting notability, then that part of ANYBIO would not make any sense. Or it would mention that it requires in-depth coverage on top of the win, making anyone who wins those kinds of awards in non-mainstream fields in danger of their award not counting as well. That just would not work. GNG exists to determine the notability of people who are not notable according to Wikipedia under any other category. It is not the superseding qualifier itself. Usterday (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The Cindy Crawford book launch splashed up the internets. While the sourcing isn't copious, having authored a memoir that can be mined for detail is a big plus, moving forward. Not a slam dunk call either way, but I feel that this meets GNG by a whisker. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per John from Idegon. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Based on the analysis of references by, I come away with a different conclusion, i.e. that it does not add up to a sufficient proof of notability (and, while I came to a different conclusion, I thank LaMona for putting in the time to do the detailed analysis).  The big question here seems to be if the Satellite award is sufficient.  I don't know if it is or not, but I do (firmly) disagree with the argument that it must be important because we have an article and category about it.  We don't use our own articles as references, nor do we use our own articles as arbiters of importance.  Primarily because of that, I'm going with delete.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This guy is a publicist. If he's notable, it ought to be clear and obvious.Jacona (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - more of a forced bio of someone in Hollywood. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2015 (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.