Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Thomas


 * 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. — CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 03:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Shawn Thomas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a writer and musician, who has no strong claim to passing either WP:AUTHOR or WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage. This is referenced almost entirely to primary sources such as his own website, the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, his book's sales profile on Amazon.com and YouTube copies of his videos -- literally the only notability-supporting source here is #6, a short article in the South Florida Gay News, but a person requires quite a lot more than just one reliable source to clear WP:GNG. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- but there's just nothing here, either in the substance or the sourcing, to suggest that he satisfies our inclusion requirements. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 10:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 10:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 10:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 10:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of notability. Rivertorch FIREWATER  19:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I saw the recent activity on this article and I'm not sure I get all the fuss. I found 3 external links in the body text, so I simply changed those to reference links, but hardly seemed reason enough to recommend for deletion - much easier just to fix.  As far as the reliable source coverage, Bearcat's description of "entirely primary sources" is not accurate. Although there are quite a few primary sources, there were also multiple "notability-supporting" sources already listed (including "wiki links"), and to assist with "evidence of notability," I have just added several additional sources to the page. Agreed about the Advertorially tone - but again, can easily be fixed with a few edits.  Still not reason enough to delete.  Finally, to provide additional context for reason for continued inclusion, I would reference the following Wikipedia articles of artists who fit into this particular niche of not just LGBT Christians - but "out" LGBT Christian musical artists such as:  Marsha Stevens, Jason and deMarco, Trey Pearson, and Ray Boltz.  Obviously "musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist" - however artists such as these occupy a unique space in the genre of Christian Music as openly gay Christian musicians. Theonlyoneofme
 * I fail to see where you've added any new reliable sources — the only new sources I'm seeing here are press releases and WordPress blogs and Facebook posts, not reliable or notability-assisting media outlets. And no, counting inbound or outbound wikilinks is neither a notability criterion nor "referencing". Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reference #1 - SFGN South Florida Gay News article - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.
 * Reference #2 - RightOutTV interview - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.
 * Reference #3 - Watermark Magazine interview - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.
 * Reference #4 - PrideSource Magazine (aka Between the Lines (newspaper)) article with interview quotes - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.
 * Reference #5 - citation of published material in mainstream Christian music - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.
 * Reference #17 - SFGN article - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.
 * Reference #20 - GLBT Hall of Fame recognition - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.
 * Reference #35 - Impact Magazine third party article/review of published work - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.
 * References #9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 25 - critical recognition by third party awards and charts - not a press release, blog, or facebook post.
 * Again, you are correct that there are multiple primary sources in the article (including some press releases, blogs, and facebook posts), however that doesn't require deletion, rather continued editing and correction. The above list is made up of reliable sources that demonstrate notability criterion.  In reading through the history, your original complaint was about improperly placed external links and lack of strong reliable source coverage.  Links have been removed or corrected, and multiple reliable sources have been provided spanning a decade of material from 2007-2017.Theonlyoneofme 20:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the above list is not made up of reliable sources that demonstrate passage of a notability criterion.
 * 1 - Not a new source, but one that I already addressed in my nomination statement — so it fails to be proof that I was wrong in what I said about your new sources.
 * 2 - RightOut is a blog. It is never a reliable or notability-assisting source for anyone.
 * 3 - Watermark is a blog; in addition, it's a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, not being written about in the third person. That type of source can be used sparingly for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources, but cannot support notability in and of itself. People can and do make unverifiable and/or self-aggrandizing claims in interviews, and we don't have the ability to independently fact-check everything a person says to verify whether they were doing that or not — so notability is dependent on coverage in sources that have already done the fact-checking to ensure that what they report is accurate, not on sources in which a subject is speaking about themselves.
 * 4 - A single blurb about a single concert performance is not evidence of notability in and of itself.
 * 5 - A simple directory listing, not media coverage — directory listings do not assist notability. And anyway, all of the listings in that directory are cited to the catalog "Aaron's Rainbow Project", which means it's not a directory of media coverage about him, but a directory listing of his own self-published content.
 * 17 - A repeat of the same SFGN article as #1, so still irrelevant to what I said for the same reason.
 * 20 - The"GLBT Hall of Fame" is not a notable organization whose recognition counts as a notability claim for the purposes of getting into Wikipedia. Notability because awards attaches to notable awards that get media coverage, such as the Grammys or the Junos, not to every piddling little PR organization that creates its own awards to honour its own friends and never gets any coverage outside of what it publishes itself on its own website.
 * 35 - "Powered by WordPress" = blog.
 * 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 25 - Non-notable third party awards, which don't assist notability for the same reason that the "GLBT Hall of Fame" doesn't assist notability, and non-IFPI certified WP:BADCHARTS that don't count as notability for the purposes of clearing WP:NMUSIC's charting criterion. That requires charts on the order of Billboard, not the "OutVoice" charts (which is actually the same organization as the "GLBT Hall of Fame".)
 * None of this is the kind of sourcing it takes to make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Not the new sources you added, not the old ones that were already there — none of it. The only ones that are even marginally acceptable at all are South Florida Gay News and PrideSource, but they're not enough by themselves as the article's only marginally acceptable sources — we require quite a bit more reliable source coverage than just two short blurbs. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Each time an issue is resolved, the goalposts are moved. This has become a subjective nomination for deletion. Hopefully others will submit input to provide some balance. Would be disappointing if deleted based on frivolous minutiae.Theonlyoneofme 03:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be that you didn't fully understand where the goalposts were to begin with, but they haven't moved. Before !voting to delete, I reviewed the sources provided, and for the most part they neither meet WP:RS nor give any indication of notability as Wikipedia defines it. Wikipedia has a very strict definition of notability these days. If I thought this case was marginal, I'd vote "weak keep" and hunt for better sources, but it isn't marginal; it's clear-cut. Rivertorch FIREWATER  16:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, nobody moved any goalposts. They're in the same place they always were, and you're simply failing to understand where that was and is in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete At least 12 of the sources are illegal social media, amazon etc and are not considered WP:RS. Also two search urls, which are absolutely illegal. The others very poor, with a mix of blogs, which are also illegal. No secondary coverage. On Spotify, the artist has only 7181 plays, for the main record which is Untitled Hymn (Come to Jesus). The others are <1000 plays All indicative of a lack of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)


 * 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.