Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Brawley


 * 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. This is a messy discussion. It is quite true that meeting the NMUSIC SNG is sufficient for demonstrating notability; however, it is also true that we need more than "this person was nominated for this award in this year". Thus the argument that the individual needs to also meet GNG is incorrect (or I, at least, can find no basis for it) but we do need verifiable information about him. The presence of such was not demonstrated, and thus I have to close this as "delete". Vanamonde (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Stuart Brawley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

straight forward GNG. No references - except the subject's own facebook page. nothing significant in independent sources Rayman60 (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I agree entirely with the OP. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  01:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Brawley was nominated for a Juno Award for Producer of the Year, which meets WP:MUSIC. I have added a source verifying this. Chubbles (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. While being nominated for a Juno Award is a valid notability claim in principle, even people who have a valid notability claim still have to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing — the fact that the nomination itself can be nominally verified by a glancing namecheck of his existence in a list of the nominees does not, in and of itself, hand him a free exemption from still having to show some evidence of reliable source coverage about him. So I'm willing to reconsider this if additional sources can be added to support more than just the nomination alone, but the fact of the nomination does not singlehandedly absolve him of ever having to show any other notability-supporting references. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Topics that meet an SNG do not also need to meet the GNG. Their claim to notability under the SNG needs to be verified with a reliable source, but that has already been provided. Chubbles (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, topics that meet an SNG most certainly do still need to also meet GNG, because this article is not allowed to say anything about him without supporting that with sources — technically speaking, this article as it stands has to be trimmed back so that the Juno Award nomination itself is the only thing it says about him at all, because nothing else in the article is citing any sources. The entire "career" section, and even the claim in the introduction, that he's currently based in Los Angeles, have to be removed from the article entirely if they can't be supported by legitimate reliable sources. There is no notability claim that any person can make that ever exempts them from having to have reliable source coverage in media just because the notability claim is technically verifiable — even a President of the United States would not qualify for an article on here if they somehow managed to hold the role without getting any media coverage about their work in the role. SNGs serve to clarify what counts as a notability claim as long as it's properly supported by GNG-worthy reliable sourcing — they do not serve as an exemption from having to actually have any GNG-worthy reliable sourcing at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not, descriptively, the case - if topics needed to meet GNG along with the SNGs, there would be no need for SNGs at all, and we would be a GNG-only encyclopedia (which we are not). It also should not be the case - there seems to be a movement to make the GNG the end-all-be-all of whether something has an article, but the SNGs exist for good reason; there are a variety of things we can, do, and should cover that are not captured appropriately by the strictures of the GNG. This is a topic for another discussion page, of course, but it should be clear that the reading of how the SNGs should work given above is not universally held. What sourcing this notable article needs is a matter of cleanup, not deletion. Chubbles (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A person who has a clean pass of an SNG does not have to cite as much coverage as a person who's shooting for "doesn't pass an SNG but still gets over GNG on the sourceability anyway", I'll grant — but no, passing an SNG does not constitute an exemption from having to have any sourcing more substantive than one glancing namecheck of their existence in a list, because we do still have to be able to properly verify everything else the article says about them too.
 * And no, it is not true that "if topics needed to meet GNG along with the SNGs, there would be no need for SNGs at all", either — people on here quite routinely think that GNG is automatically passed the moment a person can show two media hits in any context whatsoever (even purely local coverage in non-notable contexts, like winning a high school poetry contest or organizing a community picnic), which is not correct either. SNGs serve to clarify what counts as a legitimate notability claim in the first place, and GNG serves to clarify how the notability claim has to be supported before the notability claim actually translates into an article actually becoming keepable — they're not mutually exclusive alternative paths to notability, but work in tandem as distinct aspects of the same notability equation. Saying that a person can get into Wikipedia by passing an SNG or GNG, but does not have to pass both, is exactly what opens our notability rules to getting gamed by self-promoting wannabes who claim passage of an SNG they don't really pass (such as the way that every actor who has any role at all could always simply claim that the role was "major" enough to pass NACTOR #1, if just saying the word "major" were in and of itself enough to exempt them from having to have the correct type of reliable sources to prove how major it was), and/or think they pass GNG the moment they can show one article in their hometown paper about their winning of a high school poetry contest (or that every fire chief, every police chief, every city councillor and every school board trustee in every town passes GNG the moment one or two pieces of local coverage can be shown, which is also not the case.)
 * And no, there also are not "a variety of things we can, do and should cover that are not captured appropriately by the strictures of GNG" — there's simply never any such thing as a person who can't be sourced over GNG but is somehow still notable and important enough that we need to keep an encyclopedia article anyway. It is entirely possible for a person to pass GNG, but have a poorly written article which doesn't properly demonstrate the GNG pass because Wikipedians tend to really suck at putting in the necessary amount of work to make many articles good — but it is not possible for a person to fail GNG, but somehow still be so important that we waive GNG and keep the article anyway. Articles about people are always vulnerable to advertorial promotionalism by the subject or their friends and family, or attack editing by their enemies — so the rule is not that as long as a person can be nominally verified as having a technical pass of an SNG, then they get to keep an article on here even if no substantive reliable source coverage about them can actually be cited at all to support it. Reliable source coverage is precisely what we depend upon in order to keep our articles neutral and accurate at all, so people can never be exempted from having to have any of it just because the article says they did X, Y or Z. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't completely follow the above, in part because I don't know what an "SNG" is. There is a part of WP:NMUSIC which says Musicians ... may be notable if they ... [have] won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. This says nothing about "presumed notable" or "is notable" so according to WP:NRV this topic is not notable because there are no sources with any substantial information. Thus the article should be deleted as outlined in WP:FAILN. I note also that WP:SUBNOT says this: Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or 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. In my opinion this is conclusive policy based reasoning to delete. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't want to brickwall the discussion any more than it already has been, but the whole point of notability is to establish a threshold for inclusion; below this bar (wherever we set it), not notable, and above it, notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion. We should want to provide comprehensive coverage of notable topics, which we can do, here, with verifiable evidence from reliable sources. (I provided one, but everyone here is presuming no other sources exist, as if the Canadian press just doesn't cover the Juno awards.) Being nominated for Canada's highest musical award undoubtedly passes that threshold per WP:MUSIC; if we choose not to cover the matter because of worries that the article might end up non-neutral or inaccurate or "good" (however we define it), I think we do so to our own demerit, and in contravention of our own guidelines. If the article will be short to keep it neutral and verifiable, so be it; a little information on a notable topic is better than no information at all. Chubbles (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I read the part of WP:NMUSIC which says that articles not meeting the GNG should be deleted. I voted accordingly. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 00:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete No actual Reliable Source apart from that of theglobeandmail . ShunDream (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2018 (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.