Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Garth


 * 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. No consensus on the strength of the sources. v/r - TP 01:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Brian Garth

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with general or topical notability guidelines for bands. Unsigned band with recordings consisting of self-published and unreleased material. Sourcing is limited to local press, local band/scene rags, and local public radio. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 11:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

-
 * Keep. I can and will provide sources from multiple states on the subject if that is what is needed to prove notability outside of any one locality. The subject is from Las Vegas, so I used mostly Las Vegas sources as they were easier to research. However, I believe that by using these sources, notability is established under criteria 1. and criteria 7. of the topical notability guidelines for bands and is certainly established under the general notability guideline as well. Maybe I am unclear as to exactly how many of the guidelines the subject must qualify for under the topical notability guidelines. I believe the subject of the article is at the forefront of the Las Vegas music scene as is implied by having been on the cover of that city's widest circulated weekly publication, and further evidence of his relevance to the music scene in Las Vegas can be verified by his multiple appearances on that city's public radio where the subject's opinion, specifically of that music scene, is the topic of concern for the broadcast.  When I find sources from other cities, will this page live?Sal (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. You need to locate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You can see my comments below for an analysis of the sources thus provided. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 22:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: "He is most widely known for his role as one of the co-founders, guitarists and vocalists of Black Camaro" (redlink) says it all. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The delete 'votes' do not give good grounds for deletion. In-depth coverage in local sources is perfectly acceptable to demonstrate notability of individuals. Redlinks exist to encourage editors to create articles, they do not demonstrate non-notability per se. The article already cites three very in-depth news articles about Garth in three different publications. Sionk (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is subjective importance, meaning that it is assumed that the subject is notable by seeming important or appearing to stand out to a person, group, or locality. CityLife is a nightclub tabloid. Of the four CityLife articles, two are gig promos, one promo for a self-released recording and how to get it, and the "cover issue" mentions them in one sentence. LVWeekly is another nightclub tabloid. One LVWeekly is a "list your band here" link, while the other is a one paragraph mention of new local bands with a link to their Bandcamp profile. Bandcamp doesn't support notability. The KNPR interviews were promotional pieces for a local indie festival. Essentially, anybody calls in; they get on the air. The RJ blog is more than a passing mention, but one such article does not equate to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As far as the redlink, it most certainly is questionable. The article claims notability based on the subject's role in the band. The band has not been established or determined to be notable and according to sourcing provided, is highly unlikely at this point. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 22:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re the "cover issue", are you referring to this, which is a 1,800 word article entirely about Garth, if so, I don't understand the "mentions them in one sentence" bit. I'm not familiar with the term nightclub tabloid, are you claiming the source is unreliable? Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  23:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nope, that source is a mere promo for a gig that night. The term "nightclub tabloid" is how locals refer to the newspaper inserts and street stand publications that provide tourists with a list of local nightlife activities. (I'm a transplant from Henderson.) The one sentence cover story is here. Overall, the tabs fail independence. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 23:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * RE the "cover issue". The 'cover issue' where I write, "Garth was on the cover of Las Vegas CityLife Magazine's music issue in 2011", is not the same as the one mention cover story. The Issue that Garth was on the cover of was this issue.  The actual 'cover' in this case, would be this specific cover that I am still in the process of finding a more verifiable link to. I also have never heard of a night club tabloid, though I have found more sources connecting Garth to Black Camaro from other US cities, but I feel they too will be condemned as 'nightclub tabloids'. Should I even bother? As for KNPR's State of Nevada being a 'call in and get on the radio' type of show, I cannot disagree more. One should easily make the distinction between inviting a guest in to speak on the air vs. a random caller getting through and getting his /her 15 minutes of fame. In both instances, one was used specifically to bio Garth and his band Black Camaro, while the other was a sit down to discuss the local music scene in las vegas that happened to be at the same time as the Neon Reverb music festival, which is sponsored by Zappos and features national acts on their bill. However, the mere fact that a publication would want to specifically bio Garth at the same time a radio station would, struck me as reason to believe there was notability. I think what is being underestimated here is the influence and notability of an independent artist, and what is being overestimated is the ability for that particular artist to have such an influence over his/her local media for the sake of promotion - albeit free promotion - as opposed to the demand for the information by the community, which is clearly the case here.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvador Calyso (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC) 68.104.0.87 (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. First off, I would recommend providing as many references as you are able. Something that you might overlook could establish notability. The fact remains that this: http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2004/06/23/cover_story/cover.txt is one sentence in an article. This article, for which he was on the cover was a mere promo gig: http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2011/03/11/music/stories/iq_42794819.txt. I generally don't prefer to give more information about my personal life here, but I think several people know my background. I served as VP of an organization and worked to promote the organization and individual for three years, using the same (and more) of the PR tools that you have used. I took the organization national, international, then left. Of course, not before writing my first article for which I had a significant conflict of interest. As far as KNPR SON, I've been the scheduled guest twice and know the staff very well and how the shows operate. The interviews may be reliable, but they fail independence. Promotions included working with all the publications that you mention. There has also been two entire pages of a life bio in the LVRJ, Sun, and indepth reports on television. There has been a short three ep doc on cable and a full-length doc currently making the rounds at festivals. A book is in the works. Quoting a portion of your claim, "the mere fact that a publication would want to specifically bio Garth at the same time a radio station would, struck me as... " a promotional blitz for the indie festival. If you work with the band, keep doing what you're doing. Find a notable indie or major label. Bypass self-releasing your music. Get out of LV and generate some press and reviews that are not mere gig promotions. And good luck. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 08:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the source I linked above is just a promo for the gig. The gig is not mentioned until half way through the article, the main substance of which is dealing with Garth himself, not the band. We should expect that people get more coverage when they are promoting something, this happens in the most bulletproof reliable sources, so I don't think that it makes this source any less important as regards the GNG, especially as it goes well beyond WP:ROUTINE. The source appears to have an editorial system, and I don't see a reason why it would not be an RS, its target audience does not seem relevant. I would consider revising my !vote if you can make a case for it being an unreliable source. Sal, I agree with Cindamuse, if you have access to more sources let us know, it can only help keep the article (sources that address the subject in detail are preferable to those that only mention them in passing, regardless of where they are from.)  Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  11:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * More Sources Added: I found and added 11 more sources to the article. Also, I am still perplexed as to why Las Vegas CityLife, Las Vegas Weekly, Las Vegas Review-Journal, and KNPR are not reliable enough sources to establish notability. They all have their own Wikis, apparently they have passed through a proper notability screening. Is this sound logic?. Sal 06:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Let me make it clear that I am not a promoter for the band, or for Garth. I do live in Las Vegas, and I hear about this guy all the time, though I hear mostly of his rants online that I suppose he is becoming more known for locally. However, when I inquire about these rants of his, it always comes back to "You know, he's the guy from Black Camaro". I also do not believe it is a promo for the gig. It is a bio of Garth, who represents what Citylife feels is a staple of the Las Vegas music scene (and apparently his community's facebook collective, which I completely understand the exclusion of as a source). Please help me clear up the "one line" mention. I'm not sure if you are referring to the headline, or if you are referring to the entire article written about Garth's band where the magazine basically reprinted with permission, Garth's words (or his band's words, that much is not exactly clear), though they represent events that happened to Garth as is clearly stated in the forward to the source "Interstellar Overdrive". I placed that source at that particular place in the Wiki article, not to establish notability, as I thought I had done with the previous sources, but to establish a reliable source that shows information concerning Garth being on tours of the US. I do have a college understanding of sources, however, I am new to the Wiki-way. Sal 20:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think there is enough here to meet the GNG. From my research, Black Camaro is likely to be notable also, so it being a red link is irrelevant. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  20:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. See above. Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 22:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nominator makes a strong case that none of the produced sources surpass WP:ROUTINE coverage in entertainment sections of news sources. Nothing here impresses sufficiently to keep a BLP. BusterD (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP: ROUTINE, In what way? It should be recognized that the original "nomination" came before 13 additional reliable sources were added to the article to support notability, independence, and reliability. The Nominator certainly makes "a" case, but I would not go so far as to call it a "STRONG" case. Please allow me to explain why.  A person being on the cover of a magazine in which the "cover story" is specifically about that person, goes far beyond WP:ROUTINE, despite it being a monthly, weekly, or even a daily periodical. There are well over 20 references here, most of which are absolutely not for promotional purposes, and all are completely verifiable and from respectable publications. In fact, most of them were written about events that had passed, so clearly they are not for promotional purposes, as they mention events THAT HAVE PASSED. Clearly every argument made against this article is fallacious. First it was a "notability" issue, which was found to be a false alarm. The subject is clearly notable; his name is mentioned in well over 20 references (and I've found even more). He certainly is not world renown, but what percentage of wiki subjects are? Then, the "notability" argument became a "source reliability" argument. This was also challenged, and I'd like to think proven to be false as well. Soon after, a third argument was made - that the subject is not "independent" of the sources. Really? How so? In what way is the subject of the article connected to these multiple publications, other than being from the same town as most, but not all of the sources? Is it possible that Brian Garth is such a mover and shaker that he has every major publication in Las Vegas in his back pocket, despite the fact that they are all in competition with each other? Unless that ridiculous notion is the case, I think anyone arguing in favor of these supposed guideline violations is delusional. I have looked over several pages that are up for deletion based on notability. I get it, most of them have maybe one or two sources, but no solid info on the actual person. It makes sense to delete that. I've looked into routine, most of these go beyond routine, far beyond routine. I've looked under the guidelines for topical notability, this qualifies under 1 and 7, I suggest reading them again. I can't exactly prove that the subject is "independent" from the sources, but it is unlikely that he has a connection to any of them personally. Unless you can prove he does, which I'm sure you cannot, "Independence from the source" should not even be considered. Besides, they are all respectable publications - that would be a serious conflict of interest on their part. You're not impressed? I've read some of the stuff you've worked on. I'm not impressed either. Sal (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - If the other 2.5 million articles on bands and performers standing on en-WP were sourced out so well, we could all sleep soundly at night. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Two dozen articles/reviews are listed in this article, including one I found in the Las Vegas Sun from 2009 about the release of a new album. As a whole, I believe they demonstrate notability. AuthorAuthor (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2012 (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.