Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian McNaught


 * 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. Consensus shifted this way due to improvements to the article during the course of this discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Brian McNaught

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:BIO notability. Of the sources listed, the first few are primary sources and only mention the subject in passing. The only source that obviously meets WP:RS, Bloomberg, is nothing but a single quote from McNaught. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please look at the references and notability of this individual. Resource have been added from Newspapers, Universities, and respected unbiased newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrrfunding (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * None of that sourcing is good enough, no. Of the references that have actually been properly used as footnotes for specific content in the article, four of the six are primary or unreliable sources that cannot support notability at all — and one of the two that does count for something just namechecks his existence a single time as a soundbite-giver, while not being about him. Literally the only one of those that even starts to count for anything at all is the Cornell University Archives page — but that can support biographical details, while not being enough to get him over WP:GNG by itself as the article's only good source. And the sources you've contextlessly added under the footnotes don't contribute anything either: one is his own website, which is a valid external link but cannot confer notability as anyone can start a website about themselves; one is a repetition of one of the footnotes; one is another invalid primary source; and while one of them is an actual newspaper article, it's not a very long one and doesn't really add anything new to the article besides reverification that he exists. So no, the references haven't shown that notability is there. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a potentially valid claim of notability here, but the references aren't good enough to support it: right across the board, it's almost all primary and unreliable sources. A writer does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify in primary sources that he exists — he gets an article when reliable source coverage about (not just mentioning) him in media can be shown which verifies a WP:CREATIVE pass. The guy's been active for long enough that a better class of sourceability might be possible in databases that I don't have access to, but we don't keep an article just because the quality of sourcing needed to make an article keepable might exist, if the article isn't making a slam-dunk notability claim on the order of winning a Pulitzer — we keep an article only if and when the necessary volume and quality of sourcing can be shown to definitely exist. So I'm willing to revisit this if much more solid sourcing can actually be shown, but the sourcing that's present here now doesn't cut it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You asked for newspaper references and credible resources and they were supplied. Is this because the author stands for Gay rights and you have an issue with a gay author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrrfunding (talk • contribs) 17:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided enough newspaper references, and most of your other sources don't count as credible ones. And you clearly need to spend a lot more time around here if you think it has anything to do with him being gay — I'm an out gay man who was the original creator of probably more of our articles about LGBT writers than any other individual editor. But being LGBT doesn't entitle a person to an exemption from having to pass WP:GNG, either — even an LGBT writer still has to be properly sourceable as passing WP:AUTHOR. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The sources are not there to demonstrate notability. The opening lines would need much better sources to establish their grandiose claims that he is widely known.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - a truly horrible article. To User:Jrrfunding, adding puffery like a gigantic, unsourced list of clients and unsourced claims ("was the first to" etc) is counter-productive. It makes people see your article as more inappropriate for Wikipedia. And no, Bearcat's concerns are legitimate expectations of an article. However, Mr. McNaught does indeed seem to be a go-to expert on the topic - I found sources like Bloomberg, HRC and CNN using him as an expert on diversity and sensitivity training. To Jrrfunding, I will vote to keep if you are prepared to take the time to cut the article heavily and remove any and all information that there isn't a third-party source for, one not written by Mr. McNaught. Blythwood (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is a bit too promotional, but I found two rather in-depth stories in reliable sources:  in the Sun-Sentinel and  in the National Catholic Reporter.  Besides that, there are a few more:  and  in The Advocate;, , and  (book reviews) in Publishers Weekly; and  in The New York Times, which seems to be the source of the "godfather of gay diversity" line comes from.  The NYT source is a trivial mention, but it can be used to source the line. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – Of note is that the clientele list was removed from the article (diff). North America1000 02:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:BASIC and point #3 of WP:AUTHOR, because his works have received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Sources used to confirm this are those listed above by :, , , , , , . There's also this article from NPR. North America1000 02:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as the article has sufficient reliable sources to deserve an article, and the subject of the article passes WP:AUTHOR. Omni Flames   let's talk about it  06:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per NinjaRobotPirate and Northamerica1000. I added some of those additional sources in a "Further reading" section of the article. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK


 * Keep Article has been improved since nom and now indicates notability. Smartyllama (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2016 (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.