Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan J. Bruce


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 14:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ryan J. Bruce

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not appear notable per WP:BIO. References are either not reliable, or do not reference the subject directly. Glocal World Entertainment section reads non-neutrally as well. Vaca tion  9  05:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Vacation9. The references are very reliable in the field of the subject, and back up the statements made. Either subject's name or subject's company name which is named clearly in article has been explicitly featured on highly credible music industry organizations such as Music Week, AIM, PPL, and Record of The Day. All of these are official sites of companies that are very notable in the music business field, all but one with their own wikipedia pages, and are listed in the reference boxes. References are included and clearly state either subject's name, company's name, or both. The Glocal World Entertainment section has been edited for the sake of neutralization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjthompson87 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the references show any evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. One of the references is a Wikipedia article, and we should never reference one Wikipedia article to another. Other references are published by the subject or based on his company's press releases.Passing mentions on long lists don't count, as we need significant coverage. I see no evidence that this person is notable at this time. Maybe in the future, but not yet.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not delete Reference to wikipedia article should be removed. I agree that is a poor reference, not sure why they put that in there? Not too sure about the long list mention either, though I did see his name in the Music Week magazine on that list, however you had to be a subscriber to see it online. However, I see the rest of them as very credible, and they are all independent of each other. Only 1 reference is based on a 'press release' by his company, the rest are not, and regardless of that, all of them are reliable sources and do not just publish any press release unless it's coming from a very notable source that's worth publishing. Research companies referenced, all of them are very noteworthy and credible. For them to feature the name and/or company explicitly shows notability. These are not any old regular blogs. Those with knowledge on the music industry or have well researched references should contribute to this, as that's the area of expertise listed. Some adjustments needed, but not deletion surely. — San jay86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:17, June 8, 2014 (UTC).
 * There are no reliable, secondary, significant sources specifically citing Ryan Bruce for an accomplishment / achievement indicating notability per WP:BIO. Vaca  tion  9  06:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree/Challenge 2 references have been removed, and information regarding one reference in the article have been removed. Accomplishments /achievements completely subject to definition, as not explicitly defined in WP:BIO. Notable references are listed citing past 'accomplishments' (notable music industry events held with credible firms showing endorsements as well as in attendance, and published on firm's outlets) - that is explicitly cited in numerous sources which are 100% independent are reliable in subject's field. This therefore notes notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by San jay86 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 June 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Please point to even a single example of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. I see none. The "Record of the Day" source, for example, is explicitly marked as a reprint of a press release, and is therefore not independent. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This account was created today and has no other edits outside this topic. Possible Sockpuppetry/Meatpuppetry. Vaca  tion  9  13:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No deletion, perhaps tweaking I've seen a load of pages that have not been deleted with sources a lot less credible than this one (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Owusu). Subject has been cited in Music Week, Record of the day, AIM, and PPL, all referenced. What more sources do you need? That page I just posted has a bunch of youtube links as a reference and is up with no consideration of deletion. Tweaking perhaps, no deletion. Please understand the credibility of some of the companies references before you suggest that are neither reliable or independent. Commenting with no knowledge or without taking note of subject's field of expertise does not make for a good argument to suggest deletion. That's too harsh, subject seems noteworthy in field to be credited and endorsed by such companies, small or big mentions. — Twincity12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding undated comment added 06:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to try making arguments that are actually based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We don't keep non-compliant articles just because other non-compliant articles exist. That argument is weak. We have 4.5 million articles, and delete hundreds or thousands every single day. Maybe that other article should be deleted as well, but so what? This debate is about only one article, and that is Ryan J. Bruce. By the way, the "Record of the Day" source is a reprinted press release, and therefore contributes nothing toward notability.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This account was created today and has no other edits outside this topic. Possible Sockpuppetry/Meatpuppetry. Vaca  tion  9  13:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability, and the appearance of multiple SPAs to argue the point isn't doing anything to improve my opinion.  Dwpaul  Talk   06:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability. References all essentially about his company.TheLongTone (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Changes/improvements made Career from 2008-2013, and 2013-Present has been removed (with some of this info added to the 'Glocal World Entertainment' box), was no evidence or references to back-up personal career pre-"Glocal World Entertainment". Article is now primarily based on subject's career via his company, as all references refer to his doings with company. Also, new reference added citing subject and company. — Twincity12 (talk
 * Delete - While this is a nicely done page (having some of the hallmarks of paid work), I am not seeing the multiple independent published sources necessary for a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - The closing administrator should note indications of sockpuppetry in the debate. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems multiple revisions and improvements have been made to neutralise the article since creation. Article is more factual and does not necessarily act as promotion for subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.200.52.25 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not seeing sufficient reasons for deletion, though sources could be a little stronger. No trash, personal blog sites appear to be used as references, they all seem legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.200.52.25 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you only get to !vote once.  Dwpaul  Talk   15:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2014 (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.

There are a gazillion redirects to this article which must also be deleted.  Dwpaul  Talk   15:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Taken care of.  Dwpaul  Talk   16:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)