Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Raymond


 * 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 speedy keep. North America1000 08:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Brittany Raymond

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ENT. No awards or multiple nominations. A few biographies in small local newspapers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator Magnolia677 (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, she's only been nominated once for a Canadian Screen Award, the top screen acting prize in Canada, so that general criteria isn't reached. But in Entertainers:


 * "significant roles in multiple notable... televisions shows": While she plays the same character in both series, both have international broadcasters, including BBC station CBBC. The Next Step is in its fourth season, with 125 episodes. Often children's series get 65 episodes, the "magic number" for syndication, so any series with more can be considered very commercially-viable.
 * "large fan base": 348k followers on Instagram, the best barometer of fan base for youth celebrities. The global following is large enough that she has a biography on the Spanish Wikipedia.
 * "has made... prolific... contributions to a field of entertainment": to have appeared in 131 episodes of scripted TV series in the first four years of your career is a substantial rate. I'm just discovering, through the news link at the top of this nomination, that she has performed live in New Zealand and in Scotland.

As per "small local newspapers", The Brampton Guardian has a circulation of 116k or 129k, depending on the day of the week, according to 2015 audited circulation figures. Brampton itself is the 9th largest municipality in Canada. -- Zanimum (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not in the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The (old) weekly combined stat, 345,000 copies, is in the article, in the infobox. --  Zanimum (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just realizing that your comment refers to the whole argument. Yes, those don't appear in the article, yet. But that's something that could have been requested using . Yes, there's lots of spam on Wikipedia, but editors should act on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite.  --  Zanimum (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If the claim of notability is "notable because media coverage exists ergo WP:GNG", then it takes daily newspapers, not community weeklies regardless of the community's size, for that claim to actually be satisfied — The Brampton Guardian could be used as supplementary sourcing for stray facts after GNG had already been satisfied by stronger sourcing, but it cannot bring the GNG in and of itself as an article's only source. That said, there is a valid notability claim here, but the Brampton Guardian article has nothing to do with it. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the first I've heard of the frequency of a media outlet coming into play. Where would I read more about this determinant? Brampton used to have a paid daily (The Conservator), but it was largely supplemented with wire stories. While the Guardian has shrunk since then, the number of local stories in both were roughly the same, just more spread out amongst the dailies. Given the state of local media as a whole in North America, a dailies-only policy is worrisome. --  Zanimum (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and flag for reference improvement. For the record, it is not necessary for an entertainer to have multiple nominations for an entertainment award before being nominated for an entertainment award counts as a claim of notability — one nomination is enough if properly sourced. The word "multiple" only becomes relevant to WP:ENT if the notability claim amounts to "notable because she's been in stuff", in which case we do require multiple stuffs — but it is not relevant if the notability claim is "notable because she's been nominated for a top-level award in her field", in which case one nomination is enough so long as it's properly sourced. And, for that matter, even if a person did require "multiple" nominations to qualify as notable because nominations, she does have multiple nominations: for some reason Zanimum just mentioned her nomination at the 5th Canadian Screen Awards in 2017, while missing the fact that she was nominated in the same category at the 3rd Canadian Screen Awards in 2015 as well. So even if notability because award nominations did require multiple nominations, she has multiple nominations. I grant that the original reference for her 2017 nomination was problematic, and not even just because it's a community weekly newspaper and not a major market daily — it's also an article that merely happens to glancingly namecheck Brittany Raymond's existence in a "other local actors who also got nominations" coda to an article whose primary subject is Simu Liu, not an article that's even remotely about Brittany Raymond. I've replaced that source with a more appropriate one, and added a couple of other sources as well — it still needs more sources before it can get a quality class promotion to good article status, so it should still be flagged for referencing improvement, but the base notability claim is now properly covered off. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I find myself generally writing tldr notes at Afds justifying my !votes. But what Bearcat writes is absolutely perfect. I couldn't have written better (or less). Keep it is, with advise for improvements to the article. Lourdes  19:19, 28 January 2017 (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.