Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Salmi


 * 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 delete. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Brian Salmi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a violation of WP:NOT - a rambling article that doesn't make clear why or how the person is notable. Many, many uncited claims suggest this is an autobiography. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Article appears to have been created by an SPA. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 20:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is indeed a long and rambling article — I'm only mildly exaggerating when I say it comes close to documenting each and every individual time Salmi ever sneezed. It's so absurdly long, in fact, that it pulls off the truly impressive trick of citing 83 footnotes and yet still somehow featuring incredibly long passages of completely unreferenced text — in far too many places, as well, it doesn't just describe what he did, but delves into directly quoting everything he or somebody else said about it verbatim, which is not how you write about people's activities in an encyclopedic manner. Yet, in all this length and detail, what it fails to do is demonstrate that any of his activities were encyclopedically noteworthy: attending city council meetings to lobby for a city to declare itself a nuclear-free zone is not a notability claim; activity in student government is not a notability claim; being a non-winning fringe party candidate for political office is not a notability claim; writing opinion pieces for hyperlocal community weekly newspapers is not a notability claim; and on and so forth. If he just recently wrote and published a book, even that isn't an instant notability freebie either — passing WP:AUTHOR is a matter of winning major literary awards and/or showing evidence of noteworthy literary critics reviewing the book in media, not just of stating that the book exists — but the book is almost certainly the reason why after 35 years of activity this article is suddenly happening now: this is almost certainly an advertorial attempt by either Salmi himself or his publisher to boost his public profile and sell more books by misusing Wikipedia as a publicity platform. As for WP:GNG, that isn't just a matter of counting up the footnotes and keeping anything that surpasses a certain arbitrary number: reference bombing is a thing, and it's a thing this article is definitely guilty of. Among these 83 footnotes, I count far too many tabloid newspapers, community and neighbourhood hyperlocals, "quote of the day" sidebars and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles which aren't about him to any non-trivial degree, none of which are types of sourcing that constitute support for notability — and once you discount all of those, the relatively few remaining sources that are actually about him to any non-trivial degree are purely local coverage in the Vancouver dailies in non-notable contexts. The notability test is not just "anybody who's gotten their name into the media X number of times for any reason whatsoever" — it tests the sources for their type and depth and geographic range, and for the context of what they're covering the subject for, so it is entirely possible for a person with 83 footnotes to still fail GNG even as a person with just two or three footnotes passes it. Publicity-seeking is not how you get a person into an encyclopedia — and even if he actually were notable, this article is so badly written that it would still have to be blown up and restarted from scratch anyway. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:HOAX, not that it meets this usual definition of WP:HOAX, but this is clearly a case of Salmi having a laugh at Wikipedia. Here is a typical headlines about a Salmi stunt: Vancouver Sun: Godzilla strikes back: Funster Brian Salmi is happy creating a bit of chaos in the mayoral elections, his mischief as monstrous as his nickname.  Just to clear things up, some text: "A man who used to call himself Godzilla then later legally changed his name to Sa Tan to sound like "satan" is accusing the Yukon government of defaming his character. According to e-mails [Tan] sent to Yukon Supreme Court last week, he was asked by the department to review and revise a briefing note for Economic Development Minister Jim Kenyon on a proposed Alaska-Yukon railway. In Tan's recent political endeavours, such as bringing the Rhino Party to the Yukon and organizing public meetings against the city's smoking bylaw, Tan has gone by the name [Brian Salmi]."  I suspect that we could have an article about Salmi. But this one is pretty clearly a Salmi stunt and, as Nom says, this is a violation of WP:NOT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nom. This is a violation of WP:NOT --SalmanZ (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Inadequately written article. Fails to demonstrate the significance which does not qualify for notability claim WilmA.OliveR (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is among the 4 worst articles I have ever seen, and that is saying a lot. I have never seen an article try so hard as to mention the awards something the subject only watched got.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2019 (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.