Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Alexander Davis


 * 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. Coverage of a subject must be substantial and not trivial, and the consensus here is that the coverage provided for this subject is insufficient to meet inclusion criteria. Shereth 15:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bryan Alexander Davis

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. This biography of a non-notable living person is sourced only to blogs, messageboard posts and primary sources, and I have been unable to find decent secondary sources. — S Marshall  Talk / Cont  16:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As the author of the article perhaps I am to blame for not using enough sources. The distiller is one of the most noteworthy people in the absinthe industry and he has been referenced in several dozen searchable articles. Notably many are blogs but others include newspapers, magazines, and radio shows. I also think that not all blogs are created equal, for example a wine and spirits magazines blog referencing an article, or or a radio program about wine referencing an interview in their blog should be considered differently than a ordinary blog. The products produced by the distiller are very famous and I would argue that he does meet the criteria laid out by wikipedia for biographies. Here are three references in major media outlets for review. The prodicts themselves also have many national references including the NY Times, and all the major international spirits competitions, Wine Enthusiast, Market Watch, Imbibe and many others, as well as dozens and dozens of local newspapers and magazines.

http://www.sacbee.com/livinghere/story/1506415.html http://www.mutineermagazine.com/blog/tag/obsello/ http://www.wistradio.com/page.php?page_id=19236&jock_id=4418
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertising, as well an obvious COI violation, as the creator of the article claims to be the owner of the images (themselves obviously professionally created) which are listed as belonging to him/her. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, COI isn't massively relevant. COI may be a reason to re-write an article from a neutral point of view, but it is not grounds for deletion, and I was careful not to refer to it for that reason. The purpose of this AfD is to establish whether Bryan Alexander Davis has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.  As nominator, my position is that where the sources are reliable and independent, the coverage is not significant, and where the coverage is significant, the sources are not reliable or independent.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Marshall If I were to use the references above would that change your position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitterherbs1 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My position is that they're not about Davis. I think they contain passing mentions of him at best.  But it's not me you need to convince, it's my audience. :)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well, if Thomas Edison were interviewed in a wide variety of texts referencing the light bulb would you also state that the inventor was not relevant -only the invention? The articles and interviews are centered around the spirits that were created by Davis and thus I would argue that those same articles conclusively lend credence to the creator.

If we were to take that stance then we could also bring in the dozens and dozens of articles about the products themselves as further evidence to the relevance of the distiller. I also think it is destructive to argue for removal of an article rather than simply edit it to make it more complete or correct.

I will conclude my argument with a NY Times article about Barcelona Gin published last week. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/dining/24gins.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitterherbs1 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with a biography of this person? This article is an ad for the company.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see Jimmy_Wales. Is this an ad for a company as well?  It follows the same format?  Lists the awards and accolades that justify it?  The biography complies with the rules governing biographies...


 * Do you simply not like it. Your opinions should not be relevant to weather or not it is a viable biography.  The issue is--- is the person significant enough to warrant a biography.  I argue yes. If you disagree debate the evidence, the awards, the interviews, etc not your opinions.Bitterherbs1 (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not, and please assume good faith. This is an ad for his company, not a biography of the person.  If it isn't rewritten to be about him, then it will probably be deleted, but not by me.  Note that I didn't nominate it for deletion.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok so if I were to rewrite it give me an example of a biography of a somewhat similar living person to follow as a guideline. I am not opposed to working on it.  I am just offended that it was nominated for deletion on the grounds that it does not fit the criteria when to me it seems to quite well.Bitterherbs1 (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - the coverage in reliable sources about Davis himself is insubstantial. In order to satisfy notability, there needs to be stronger coverage about the subject.  I just don't see it here with the material presented, nor with my own search. -- Whpq (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2009 (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.