Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent James


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Kent James

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and very little adequate sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Of the sources here, we have two articles in alt-weeklies (which would be acceptable amid a diversity of solid sourcing, but are not widely distributed enough to carry GNG in their own right if they're the best you can do for sources), two directory entries which cannot support notability at all, and one article on a non-notable blog. I actually have heard of the guy's prior band before, so I made an especially concerted WP:BEFORE effort to find the degree of sourcing necessary to save this, on the grounds that if I as a Canadian have heard of a small independent American band before then surely more substantive media coverage must exist somewhere because how else could I possibly ever have heard of them in the first place -- but I came up completely dry no matter where I turned, and nothing here constitutes enough notability to grant him an exemption from having to be sourced better than this. Unfortunately it's a delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation in the future if better sourcing can actually be found somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  01:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  01:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Lady Gaga. MTV. New York Times. These are not enough for you? His IMDb page is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.156.68 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2016 March 6 (UTC)
 * NYT doesn't discuss James, and IMDb is not a reliable source. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The New York Times reference is not an article about James, but simply a "directory" section of their website on which all films automatically get a profile that transcludes the same film's profile on AllMovieGuide — so it verifies a film's existence, but is not a source that can confer notability on that film, or the people in it, in and of itself. And IMDb is not a reliable source for Wikipedia content (it's a user-generated database that can and does frequently contain uncaught errors), and is not "enough" to get a person a Wikipedia article in and of itself. And the article doesn't claim (or more importantly source) anything about either Lady Gaga or MTV that would constitute a genuine claim of notability. If he'd toured the entire country as Lady Gaga's opening act, then that might count for something, but merely being on the same bill as her at one single performance in one single venue on one single day does not pass WP:NMUSIC, and he had a brief cameo appearance in one episode of an MTV reality show, but was not a member of the show's core cast (WP:NACTOR does not confer automatic notability on every single person who ever made a one-off guest appearance on a TV show.) And neither of those facts is supported by any reliable source coverage of him. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You are deleting references in hope of deleting a page you are obviously very jealous of. Someday gay men will realize that they need to support each other instead of tear each other down at every turn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.156.68 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Valid referencing for a Wikipedia article is not "any webpage at all that makes the statement you're looking for a reference for" — only certain specific types of sourcing can qualify as supporting notability, and none of the new sources that you've been trying to add to the article are valid ones in that regard. And you cannot WP:REFBOMB five separate references onto one statement, either — we only need one, and very occasionally two at most, valid citations for any given statement, and piling more than two references onto the same statement doesn't bolster the case. And finally, having or not having a Wikipedia article is not a matter of "supporting" or "tearing down" the subject, or of "jealousy" on anybody's part — Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are based on the presence or absence of sufficient reliable sourcing to support a valid claim of notability, and have nothing to do with whether anybody likes or dislikes the topic. I hate Donald Trump, but he's clearly notable regardless of my own personal feelings, and I'd accordingly never suggest that he shouldn't have a Wikipedia article — and I love my five-year-old niece, but that doesn't mean she qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Nobody is owed a Wikipedia article just because they exist.
 * And as I already noted in my original nomination statement, I worked my ass off trying to find the quality and type of sourcing necessary to save this — so I genuinely tried to "support" and "build up" the subject, because at least in principle I do want it to become keepable, so nobody gets to tell me that I'm motivated by any personal animus against him. But the quality of sourcing needed to make him keepable just isn't out there. That's unfortunate, and I'm actually a bit disappointed by that — but my desire to save this article doesn't grant it an exemption from having to comply with our notability and sourcing rules. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The article now has been greatly improved with links and references. Internal and external. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.156.68 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't. Of the seven sources currently in the article, there are still only two — Bay Area Reporter and Willamette Week — that count for anything at all, I've already explained why the other five aren't helping, and you haven't added any new sources since the last time I addressed the problems with the current ones.
 * Just to be fair, I'll go over the problems with the existing sources again, one by one: #3 and #4 are directory sources, which are not reliable or notability-conferring sources for the same reasons that IMDb isn't a reliable or notability-conferring source. #5 and #7 are not real media outlets, but blogs. And #6 is a blurb, not a piece of substantive coverage. That's why none of them assist notability at all — and the two sources, Bay Area Reporter and Willamette Week, that do count as legitimately reliable ones do not add up to enough RS coverage to get an article kept if they're the only legitimate sources in the article. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sad how the only people on here trying to delete this page are bitchy uptight gay men. We all know that the only people they support are women...almost without exception. Interesting that there are absolutely no straight people protesting this. Btw, this page is already available in a couple languages...and let's not forget his press in Australia's Blue and DNA magazines...in GAB in Germany...on the cover of QX in London...articles in Brazil...etc. He certainly deserves this small mention of a page. If Wikipedia is indeed a reputable source in itself....this controversial page will stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyDog11 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC) — DaddyDog11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  00:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Gay activist" has now been removed so all of you can relax. He does not represent you. Trust me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.156.68 (talk) 07:37, 14 March 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.