Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Worsley (2nd nomination)


 * 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. From the comments it would appear that the article, in particular its referencing, needs serious work. Hopefully the editors participating in this huge debate with its walls of text have not spent all their energy yet and will collaborate to improve the article to an acceptable level. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Worsley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recreation of an article that was deleted about a month ago. The creator of this version tried much harder on the sourcing issue, so it isn't immediately speediable as a G4 -- but what they failed to do is provide new sources that actually cut ice. Almost right across the board, this is referenced to primary sources that do absolutely nothing whatsoever toward building notability and/or glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people -- the only reference that's actually about him to any non-trivial or notability-assisting degree is from a suburban weekly pennysaver, and exists only in the context of him renovating his studio rather than the context of anything relevant to whether he clears an inclusion criterion or not. This still is not how you reference a person as notable enough for an encyclopedia article -- this is what we call reference bombing (i.e. trying to use the number of footnotes to disguise the quality of them), and it's not an acceptable tactic. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete agree entirely with the nomination, this is another poor quality draft accepted by User:Legacypac, the sources do NOT establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Theroadislong I've never encountered you before but your criticism of me doing exactly what I am supposed to be doing as an AfC reviewer is off base. At AfC we are supposed to accept anything that is likely to survive an AfD, a standard this page clearly meets. Take your personal attack against me and shove it. Pages I accept at AfC (and there are many as some months I am the top reviewer) have a very high survival rate. If you know so much let's see how many AfC submissions you can accept and how well they do. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Bearcat your statement that the new version failed to provide new sources is not correct. There are three new sources that are independent, in-depth on Worsley, and reliable WP:BLP from the version you proposed for deletion in September: profile on Worsley from Professional Sound Magazine, Working Class Audio profile, and the Tri-City news profile. The main point here is that Worsley is notable enough for three reliable sources to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about him. You say above there are only glancing namechecks, which is not accurate. The previous version's fluff, non-cited, and circular links have all been removed in this version, as pointed out from the last article for deletion discussion. The production and engineering mentions of Worsley alongside bands worked with are typical for a producer's role and are there only to support mentions of the musician/groups he's collaborated with - not intended as sources for notability. If you are concerned with WP:REFBOMB, perhaps there could be fewer references to bands worked with? Additionally, Worsley won the 2018 Producer of the Year award at the Western Canadian Music Awards this past week (not regional, represents half of the country), which under WP:ANYBIO constitutes as notable. There is now multiple nominations and multiple award wins. This award and references did not exist in the last version proposed for deletion in September 2018.Wiseseven (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Working Class Audio is a podcast, not a reliable source — podcasts do absolutely nothing whatsoever to help establish the notability of anything or anybody. Professional Sound is an industry trade magazine that gave him an advertorial spread, not a general interest publication that covered him journalistically. And winning a Western Canadian Music Award is not a notability freebie under NMUSIC #8 if a WordPress blog like Nation Talk is actually the best you can do for sourcing the fact. The WCMAs aren't nothing, but they aren't a magic bullet that forces us to keep a poorly sourced article just because it has the words "Western Canadian Music Awards" in it. The qualifying test for a Wikipedia article is not what the article says, it's how well the thing it says can or can't be referenced — there's no notability claim that any person can ever make that entitles him to inclusion just because the claim is stated, if you have to rest on bad sources to support it because the correct kind of notability-making sourcing is lacking. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Bearcat thanks for feedback on that. Reference for Producer of the Year has been changed to Exclaim.ca (primary Canadian music publication). Why do you assume Professional Sound magazine is an advertorial? There is no indication of that on the article or publication, therefore seems like an arbitrary statement (article written by editor of the magazine). Under WP:ANYBIO (see 2.1) winning an award and/or being nominated multiple times is likely to be notable. And can you please provide support for why a Podcast is not allowed as a reliable source?Wiseseven (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Podcasts are not reliable sources because they're self-published by their own creators, not distributed by conventional media outlets with editorial standards, and because they typically feature the subject talking about himself in a Q&A interview format rather than being spoken about in the third person. But people get over our notability criteria by being the subject of third party coverage written in the third person, not by being the speaking or writing about themselves or other things. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep notablity does mot rest on which sources are selected but on meeting WP:NMUSIC which this person now meets for winning a recognized music award Producer of the Year recently. That is a change from his marginal notability before the award win that lead to previous AfC rejections and the previous rejection. Producers tend to get a lot less coverage than artists but this producer is evidently more notable and more recognized than most because he has the award to prove it now. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And meeting NMUSIC depends on having the correct kind of sources to support the article. Please note that NMUSIC specifically states that the inclusion test is not what the article says, but how well it references what it says. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The deletion first time around was entirely warranted, as it rested on flimsy and minimal-mention references. Better this time. I am not in the music profession, but do have family members and friends who are. A point I heard from them - people behind the mic, i.e., the musicians, are much more likely to be written about in general press compared to people behind the glass, i.e., producers. The latter get written up in industry publications. As has Worsley. Can still be notable. David notMD (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is still resting on flimsy and minimal-mention references, so I'm not clear on how you think it's "better this time" other than there being more of the flimsy and minimal-mention references — but what had to improve to make the article recreatable is not the number of footnotes, but the depth of referencing about him as a subject. Yes, it's true that the people behind the mic are more likely to get written about than the people behind the glass — that fact is precisely why we have more articles about the people behind the mic than we do about the people behind the glass. But it is not so mission-critical for the people behind the glass to also have Wikipedia articles that we would waive the reliable sourcing requirement just because their importance somehow trumps their lack of sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with David, producers and Engineers are rarely covered by mainstream publications. I'm a software engineer and I know that notable software engineers and computer scientists are NEVER referenced in mainstream publications.  They are always referenced in trusted and respected engineering articles online.  You'll mostly find noteworthy producer / sound engineer professionals covered under trade publications as well.  Regardless of how great they are they won't be referenced in a Vancouver Sun or New York Times.  Behind the scene professions just don't have enough mainstream interest in general. --Richardnasr (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC): — Richardnasrcontribs has made  no other edits outside this topic. --
 * If an occupation "doesn't have enough mainstream interest in general", then that in and of itself is a reason why a Wikipedia article shouldn't exist. It is not so mission-critical for any person to have a Wikipedia article that we would waive our reliable sourcing requirements just because the "need" to have an article about them somehow overrode the inability to reference it to the correct kind of sources. It's not our job to help under-covered people create their public profile by waiving our sourcing requirements — nobody is so important for us to maintain an article about that we would exempt them from having to have the correct kind of sourcing to qualify for a Wikipedia article just because of what the article says they did. So the question is not "how can we create an alternative path to notability for people who don't have the kind of media coverage that most other people would need?", but "why is it necessary for a person who doesn't have the kind of media coverage that most other people would need to be in Wikipedia at all?" Having a Wikipedia article about any given person is neither an entitlement nor a requirement — nobody is so overridingly important for us to have an article about that we would deem their importance to overrule their lack of reliable source coverage in media. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. The Western Canadian Music Awards are not the Grammys by a long shot. Plus Wikipedia's goals do not include righting any perceived wrongs such as recognizing the unsung behind-the-scenes contributors. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * By definition of WP:NMUSIC, anyone who is not a performing musician or composer fails. Wrong measuring stick. And WCMAs are Grammys if you live in western Canada. David notMD (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * By definition of NMUSIC, there are criteria there for producers — thing being that they still depend on solid reliable sourcing about the producer, not just on what the article says. And also by definition, any occupation for which we don't have defined inclusion criteria automatically lives or dies on the subject's passage or failure of WP:GNG, which is not what you want here since on the evidence of these sources he fails GNG hard — so "NMUSIC is the wrong measuring stick for record producers" is not the hill you want to plant your flag on here. And WCMAs may be Grammys if you live in western Canada, but they ain't Grammys when it comes to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for people in the music industry: they can be mentioned as supplementary information in an article about a person who's already cleared NMUSIC in other ways, but they are not a notability-clinching award for the purposes of "notable because of the award" status. Bearcat (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The refs mostly name drops, but it very wide number of folk have mentioned him, in relation to production work. It is much better sourced that it was in the previous version. As a software engineer, I agree entirely with the rationale of Richardnasr. This article is classic boundary case, that falls out the set covered by the standard notability guidelines. They are back office guys rarely spoken about in mainstream media, unless they are also musicians like e.g. Jeff Lynne, providing them additional weight, that gets them noticed. Showing my age here, but it is a solid keep. scope_creep (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Name drops don't confer notability, no matter how "wide" a "number" of folk do the namedropping, and the article says nothing about him that's so "inherently" notable that the importance of having an article about him would trump the inability to get him over GNG on much better referencing. The way Wikipedia notability works is not that we deem some people so important that the need to have an article comes first and the quality of sourcing needed to get him in the door is up for negotiation — the quality of sourcing is the non-negotiable part, and the need for us to have an article at all is the thing that's up for debate. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Wondering why this is relisted for further discussion when first round was 5/3 to keep and Bearcat seems to be the only person that has a real problem with this article - replying to all votes to keep but providing no suggestions for improvement.Wiseseven (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no other suggestion for improvement that I or anybody else can offer except the one I've already offered repeatedly: find the correct kind of sources to get him over WP:GNG. There is no alternate path to notability that ever bypasses a person having to have better references than this has, and there is no notability claim that any person can ever make that we deem so "inherently" notable that he gets exempted from having to have better references than this has: the path to notability passes through reliable source coverage about him, which is not the same thing as "glancingly mentioning his existence in coverage about something else", and there's no "get out of reliable source coverage about him" card hiding in the Chance deck. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wiseseven - AfDs are not decided by vote. An admin reviews the discussion and makes a decision. Relisting allows the discussion period to be extended. Bearcat is not under any obligation to try to fix the article. Above all, AfDs are supposed to be civil. Dissing someone who has 78,000 more edits than you do is not wise. David notMD (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfamiliar with the process. Genuine question. Not intended as a diss. Apologies Bearcat if taken that way.Wiseseven (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep  Per everyone above. He won multiple awards, multitude of sources show that he passes WP:GNG JC7V  -talk  21:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are sources here which glancingly mention his name in the process of failing to be about him; there are sources which don't even do that, but just verify stray facts about other people mentioned in the article while not even mentioning his name at all in the process; there are primary sources that do exactly nothing at all in terms of establishing notability — but one thing that isn't being shown here is "a multitude of sources that show that he passes GNG". GNG is not passed by simply counting up the number of footnotes present — it tests for the depth of how much any given source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of where the sources are coming from, the reliability and independence of each source and the context of what he's getting that coverage for, and nearly all the sources shown here fail one or more of those tests. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

this, this, and this, isn't enough?? JC7V -talk  16:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on the above sources, the ones in the article and the awards I say WP:NEXIST and WP:MUSTBESOURCES (more sources). JC7V -talk  17:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. Podcasts never, ever count as reliable or notability-supporting sources under any circumstances whatsoever, The Stranger just namechecks Ryan Worsley's existence in an article about somebody else, and the Tri-City News is a local pennysaver covering him only in the context of renovating his studio. All three of those sources have already been addressed above as to why they're not cutting it. The only kinds of sourcing that can ever be used to establish a musician as notable are (a) coverage about him in major market daily newspapers on the order of the Vancouver Sun or the Calgary Herald or the Winnipeg Free Press or The Globe and Mail, (b) coverage about him in major music media on the order of Exclaim! or Rolling Stone, and/or (c) coverage about him from the national news divisions of Canada's news television or radio networks. Not blogs, not podcasts, not community pennysavers, not glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other people: coverage which has him as the core subject (and not just a side mention in coverage whose core subject is something or someone else), in a very specific and narrow tier of high quality sources. Nothing else does the job. Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Several "keep" arguments don't really address the issue of poor referencing, or even acknowledge that it's bad. Discussion based only upon whether there are or are not sufficient reliable, in-depth sources to support a full article would be helpful; the fact that it's hard to find sources on something doesn't excuse the requirement for them.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per Deletion review/Log/2018 November 11.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Bearcat that the awards are not enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO, the majority of the sources in the article don't cover him, and the ones that do aren't sufficient for WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  20:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: My closure, superseded by the relisting above, was: "The "delete" arguments are just quite a bit more convincing here. The fact that most of the "keep" opinions are in the vein of "I know that he didn't get a lot of coverage, but..." is a sure sign that the type and quality of sourcing required by WP:GNG just isn't met, and good sources are the one sine qua non of a Wikipedia article."  Sandstein   15:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy close (defaulting to keep via no consensus): First of all, 2 months of discussion with clearly no consensus reached among substantially the same small group of editors apparently isn't enough to determine a lack of consensus... WP:IAR is core policy, and cannot be overridden by the relatively few editors who participate at DRV, let alone the incredibly few who have taken part in crafting the instructions there. (In fact, in the specific case of IAR this type of thing is the entire reason it exists in the first place!) Given the previous closes, it would not be surprising to see the "keep" side slightly more worn out from the exact same arguments being repeated over and over, thus inappropriately tilting the balance of the discussion. In short, this whole thing is far too close for comfort to WP:GAMING/WP:FORUMSHOP, even if entirely unintentional – not casting aspersions on any specific user(s) here, only on the entire process, which really should be thrown out.
 * Second, I do not think it is even theoretically possible to reach any sort of consensus here. This is because the DRV already had a very in-depth discussion, that was so controversial that it sparked a massive discussion of its own at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Take a look at that – does that seem like a discussion that has so much as the slightest chance of reaching a consensus? And if not, how in the world can one possibly be reached at a mere AfD, with but a tiny fraction of its editor participation?
 * Third, as a result of this very ill-advised relisting I am basically forced to copy-and-paste my own responses on the two major issues here, thus ripping them out of context:
 * And one other thing: the Western Canadian Music Awards are most certainly notable, given that they have a Wikipedia article. If we can't even use our own notability standards for these purposes, we probably cannot use any at all.
 * Given all of this, I would be forced to !vote speedy keep in the absence of procedural shenanigans, because there is simply no reasonable argument for deletion here at this time. Modernponderer (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * NMUSIC does not extend "notability because awards" to just any award that exists, or even to just any award that has a Wikipedia article about it — it very explicitly limits "notability because awards" to top-level national awards on the level of the Junos, Grammies, Brits, Mercury or Polaris, a tier which the WCMAs are not in. And it also very explicitly states that having a technical pass of any criterion in NMUSIC is not an instant free notability pass that exempts the article from actually having to cite enough reliable source coverage to get the subject over WP:GNG — the criteria clarify what counts as a notability claim, but simply asserting a notability claim is not enough in and of itself to get an article kept: the degree to which the notability claim actually translates into an article getting kept still hinges on the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support it. And even under the most basic WP:ANYBIO provisions for the notability of award winners, we still don't just extend an automatic inclusion freebie for just any winner of any award that exists — even there, we still care only about awards that can be shown to receive a GNG-worthy volume of journalistic coverage about their announcements of their winners, and not about purely local or regional awards that can be sourced only to their own press releases, or to purely local coverage that doesn't nationalize.
 * And while you're certainly free to believe that interviews should assist in supporting notability, we have an established consensus that they do not. "They are merely a participant"? There's no "merely" about it: the fact that they are a participant is exactly the problem. The interview represents them talking about themselves, and is thus subject to the same problems as any other self-published source: they can say things that are false or inaccurate, such as calling their single a hit even though it wasn't, or claiming an award nomination they don't really have. As I've always said, we are allowed to use interviews to source stray facts after notability has already been covered off by enough stronger sources — for instance, if it's in an interview that an already-notable musician or writer or politician comes out as LGBT, then we're not prevented from using the interview as our source for describing and categorizing them as LGBT. But what interviews don't do is count toward the initial matter of determining whether they've cleared GNG or not: you can't stake a person's basic notability on the existence of Q&A interviews. Only sources written in the third person are relevant to determining whether they clear GNG or not — once GNG has been satisfied, then you can use interviews to source additional content, but the interviews don't count for anything in the initial process of getting them over GNG in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Bearcat, we DO NOT have an "established consensus" about interviews and notability! Someone who thought just like you at the very DRV in question tried to change that at WP:N, and it was almost instantly reverted, sparking the massive discussion that I just linked to at Wikipedia talk:Notability that now has an enormous amount of opposition. So I'm sorry, but repeating that over and over again does not make it any more true, or a valid argument for deletion.
 * As for the awards: I have just gone over WP:NMUSIC very carefully, and the exact statement about awards in the case of musicians is: Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Now, while it is completely true that the examples given are of national awards, the criterion itself does not explicitly state this, when it would be very easy to do so by simply replacing "major" with "national" (or even "top-level national", as you put it). As a result, it is open to interpretation, and the interpretation of multiple participants at this AfD besides myself that the WCMA qualify as "major" is completely valid. (Note that some of the other criteria there do explicitly specify that they only apply on a national level, so this is clearly not a matter of mere semantics, and would require consensus to change.)
 * You are quite correct in that merely satisfying any of the criteria at NMUSIC is not in itself sufficient. Per WP:SUBNOT: Wikipedia should not have a separate article on [...] any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject. But here's the thing: that is also open to interpretation, and exactly what AfD is for! Multiple participants here have expressed the view that the sources provided qualify as independent, reliable ones "that provide in-depth information about the subject". You cannot just discount opinions that are completely in line with policy simply because you disagree with them.
 * Additionally, the subject-specific notability guidelines are a supplement to, not a replacement for, WP:GNG. From WP:N: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline[.] And once again, there is significant support at this AfD for the article simply passing GNG based on the sources provided, and that support must be taken into full consideration when closing the AfD, as it is completely in line with policy. Modernponderer (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The "enormous amount of opposition" is complete bluster. Everyone there is saying "it depends," and many of the "it depends" are valid since they discuss the fact an interview may show notability for a company, but not a person. The interviews here don't count and this article doesn't meet WP:GNG. In terms of the SNG, a look at the WCMA previous winners awards show many of the artists themselves do not have Wikipedia articles, and the ones that do have won other major awards such as Juno Awards. Obviously they may be notable but don't have articles yet per WP:OSE, but that fact does lend itself to show it's a regional award which wouldn't satisfy the musical awards SNG. SportingFlyer  talk  23:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SportingFlyer, you do not speak for other editors, and do not have the right to interpret their opinions in the general case for a specific one – especially as they have not chosen to comment here, despite the DRV being linked right at the start of that discussion. Furthermore, drawing a conclusion from specific aspects of the arguments in such a debate (such as the claim that "many" of the comments there distinguish between notability for people and that for companies) is something only the discussion closer(s) can actually do in an unbiased manner.
 * The discussion does demonstrate that Bearcat's assertion about interviews and notability is false, as there is nothing even remotely resembling a consensus there. It does not in any way demonstrate that the editors in question would agree (or disagree) with your personal opinion that the "interviews here don't count". Now on the other hand, many of the users who actually have commented at this AfD do disagree with you, and as I have already pointed out their completely valid opinions cannot be disregarded simply because you do not agree with them.
 * Also, for both this and the awards issue you're using inferences as evidence, while I have largely been using direct quotations from existing policy and other factual statements to prove my side of the argument. One would hope the discussion closer takes this into account when weighing the arguments. Modernponderer (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's very clear the interviews consensus is "it depends." You're trying to create an argument that interviews can be used to show notability for this article when traditionally they would not have counted towards notability, since the interviewee is a primary source for his own life, which hasn't really been rebutted. Furthermore, none of the Keep votes above discuss WP:GNG but rather the SNG, and closely examining the award shows the award's not notable enough to make someone instantly notable for winning one, and assuming it does would be a slippery slope argument - there was recently an article at AfD for a musician who won a regional music award in the northern part of an African country, would that pass WP:NMUSIC? SportingFlyer  talk  01:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "It depends" is not a consensus – it is a lack of consensus. You cannot write "it depends" into meaningful policy; the statement is basically useless in itself. As I already pointed out, the very purpose of AfD is to resolve such issues for specific articles. Furthermore, I have already explained why I consider that interviews that satisfy all of the reliable source criteria do in fact count for notability purposes.
 * There are actually quite a few points here from the "keep" side that are clearly based on the GNG and not the SNG, but I don't see how that is relevant in any case. As for your slippery slope argument, much like I said about interviews: it is a bad idea to base an entire article on any single type of source. But that is not the case here – even just now we've been discussing multiple aspects that may or may not contribute to notability for the subject of this article. Modernponderer (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "It depends" is not a consensus – it is a lack of consensus. You cannot write "it depends" into meaningful policy; the statement is basically useless in itself. As I already pointed out, the very purpose of AfD is to resolve such issues for specific articles. Furthermore, I have already explained why I consider that interviews that satisfy all of the reliable source criteria do in fact count for notability purposes.
 * There are actually quite a few points here from the "keep" side that are clearly based on the GNG and not the SNG, but I don't see how that is relevant in any case. As for your slippery slope argument, much like I said about interviews: it is a bad idea to base an entire article on any single type of source. But that is not the case here – even just now we've been discussing multiple aspects that may or may not contribute to notability for the subject of this article. Modernponderer (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, WP:ANYBIO - "1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.", Worsley has won, and been nominated for, a number of Western Canadian Music Awards so if this award is deemed "well-known and significant" then Worsley meets this criteria and so is likely (my emphasis) to be notable, of couse the Additional criteria also states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." ... why we love afds:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.