Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold M. Brathwaite


 * 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 no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Harold M. Brathwaite

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an educator, not reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to get over WP:GNG. The notability claims here are that he was director of education of a local school board and that he won an award which is not important enough to confer an instant free pass over WP:ANYBIO in the absence of much better sourcing than this -- but the only reference present here at all is a WordPress blog, not a reliable or notability-building source. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete not nearly enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. You would think that being a school administrator would not be enough (or at least I would). And it's really difficult to find the sources because they're swamped by material about the school named after him. But the sources are there, enough for WP:GNG. So far I've found / (same event, only counts as one source),, , , . —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nearly all of those are primary sources or blogs, not GNG-building media coverage — and the only two that are actual media reportage are both short blurbs in a suburban hyperlocal community weekly, which is not sufficient to confer a GNG pass all by itself if it's the best media coverage that can be found. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that meets or exceeds two" — it also considers depth, geographic range and context, not just number. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that any of those sources are blogs, so I have no idea where you're getting that from. Which ones? Are you using some strange definition of blog different from what I would expect? The sources currently in the article include two newspaper articles, a biography published by the University of West Indies as part of an event honoring him, and a brief biography of him and some other committee members published by the Ontario government. They would only be primary if we were using those sources to discuss the newspaper, the event, or the committee, none of which are actually mentioned in the article, so they are secondary. Also, there is absolutely nothing in WP:GNG about "geographic range": you are making up that part out of thin air. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Ontario government issuing backgrounder press releases on its own website, about its own self-administered award and its own self-appointed panel, are not notability-supporting sources — they aren't independent of the claims being made, but are self-published by a directly affiliated entity. A self-written biography on the self-published WordPress site of a gala he was directly affiliated with is not a notability-supporting source, for the same reasons. And "Barbados in Toronto" is a WordPress blog, not a reliable or notability-supporting source.
 * And the two sources that are actually newspaper articles are short blurbs in a suburban community hyperlocal, not a major daily newspaper — and we most certainly do have a rule that being able to show just one or two hits of purely local coverage, in purely local interest contexts that aren't "inherently" notable under our SNGs, do not add up to enough coverage to hand a person a GNG-based exemption from having to satisfy any SNGs. If all it took to get a person into Wikipedia on strictly GNG grounds even if they didn't pass any SNGs was to show that they had received two pieces of coverage in their hometown local media, then we would have to keep an article about every municipal councillor on earth, every school board trustee on earth, every garage band that ever won a high school battle of the bands competition, everybody who ever tried out for a high school football team despite having only four toes on their kicking foot, everybody who ever won a high school poetry contest, and my mother's neighbour who got into her local papers a few years ago for finding a pig in her yard.
 * We don't have a rule that local sources are entirely verboten, and I never said we did — but we certainly do have a rule that if a person has no "inherent" notability claim, and is relying solely on "media coverage exists = GNG" as their path to inclusion, then it does take a lot more than just one or two hits of purely local media coverage in purely local interest contexts to actually get them over that bar. An MP doesn't have to show non-local sources to be kept, for example, because he or she holds an inherently notable NPOL-passing role that guarantees an article — so it doesn't matter how local or non-local an MP's actual sources are, because that wouldn't impact their notability at all. But conversely, city councillors aren't all accepted as "inherently" notable, so to actually be notable enough for inclusion they have to show more than just purely local coverage to demonstrate that they're special notability cases of more than just local prominence. Local sourcing isn't nothing, but it isn't always enough in every context if it's all the subject can show. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Tending towards delete (again); however, caution trumps my impulse; re-listing for more comments
 * Keep per meeting WP:GNG based on the sources found above. Also, at the very least, this could be merged/redirected to the school named after him per WP:ATD. TJMSmith (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources found above clearly do not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Bearcat's analysis of the sources, they are clearly insufficient for a GNG keep. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  13:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. He is profiled in this book, ISBN: 9781906190064 (and he is featured in several others, if you search him on Google Scholar). In addition, he has a school named after him, and he has received the highest honor available in the province of Ontario. There are likely many newspaper mentions, if someone can access a database with them. Seems like a clear keep to me. Citrivescence (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  N0nsensical.system (err0r?)(.log) 09:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per GNG. There is 9 references, and he has been a board member and given a notable award. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2020 (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.