Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifford Brown (scrutineer)


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Clifford Brown (scrutineer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Mrluke485 with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). What can I say - two years has passed since the prod, the article still fails to indicate notability just like it did back then. And I still don't see any in-depth coverage, few passing mentions is all I am able to find, and that does not seem sufficient to warrant keeping this as an independent bio. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: I removed the prod, because it was never explained why you wanted it deleted. This man was involved directly with the Eurovision Song Contest, the reference I provided was from a well insighted Eurovision book, surely that's enough evidence for this article to excist. I personally don't want most of these articles that play key involvements with the Eurovision Song Contest to go, it isn't fair. MrLuke485 (Talk), 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Google results for this person are almost non existent, only relevant hits are this Wikipedia article and a couple of other sites that have basically copied this article, fails WP:GNG in my opinion Seasider91 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:GNG. Plenty of mentions in books and/or Eurovision links. Work at Eurovision is notable. The already existing source alone is establishing notaiblity. BabbaQ (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Work at Eurovision is notable. Seriously, this argument is getting old, and it is not supported by anyone except you and one or two Eurovision fans. How about you try to pass Notability (Eurovision) by the community first, before repeating the same line time and again, given that there is certainly no consensus for it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - why would a scrutineer be considered notable? One reference does not establish notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that a question? Or a standpoint. Yes, one ref does establish notability if it is good, and it is. BabbaQ (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to fail WP:Notability. Has not has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Subject is already mentioned in Eurovision Song Contest article. CBS 527 Talk 21:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I've been watching this and I will note there's still simply been nothing for an independent notable article, hence delete. SwisterTwister   talk  23:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. All the sources seem to confirm that, yes, he did work on Eurovision. None of the sources I could find provide really in depth coverage required for WP:GNG. I don't have access to the source used in the article, but I find it doubtful that it would devote more than a page to the subject and that is not enough to provide depth of coverage. I am open to being proved wrong. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:22, 9 December 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.