Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beverly Glenn-Copeland

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 keep. (non-admin closure) HindWiki^Connect 23:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Glenn-Copeland

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and not nearly enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG in lieu. Of the four sources here, two are brief blurbs, and one is a glancing namecheck of the subject's existence in a listicle -- and the only one that actually has any substance to it is just supporting that he came out as transgender, not that he actually passes NMUSIC for anything. There simply isn't enough sourcing, or enough substantive content, here to deem him notable. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough to just meet WP:GNG. I was actually preparing to nominate it for a speedy when the original editor added a link to an album I watch, but I did WP:BEFORE and found some additional sources so improved the article instead. I will likely not grow beyond a stub, but additional sources from the 70s and 80s may be found in print. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have enough to "just meet" GNG, for the reasons I addressed above: two of the sources are brief blurbs, and one is a listicle that glancingly namechecks his existence without containing so much as one comma more about him than namechecking his existence. The only source that counts one bean toward GNG is the CBC Toronto piece, and that (a) verifies nothing about him that would constitute an WP:NMUSIC pass, and (b) is not enough coverage to confer a GNG pass all by itself as the only source that's more than a brief blurb or a glancing namecheck. And the only new source added by you, and not already present in the creator's initial version before you came along, was one of the blurbs — all you did otherwise was reformat the creator's existing sources for correct referencing style. This is not what it takes to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did, at the time of writing, have enough to just meet GNG. In this case, a number of short discussions and entries in discographies, etc. And now it's clearly a snow keep, not to mention the work by Michig and the find of the feature piece in the Globe and Mail that was recently added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short discussions and entries in discographies do not assist passage of GNG. GNG is not "any possible form of sourcing that exists at all"; it's only certain specific kinds of sources, namely substantive media coverage, and short blurbs and listicles and discographies are not among what qualifies. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Further coverage found in Google/Google Books searches: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. --Michig (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three of those six are mere namechecks in index directories; one is a mere namecheck on one page of a book about something else, where the page is entirely blank in preview mode and it's thus impossible to verify what it actually says about the topic besides namechecking his name; and the "Museum of Canadian Music" is not a real museum, but an advertorial platform on which "forgotten" musicians get to put their "coverage" there themselves. So none of those count for anything at all. The only one that actually helps to establish notability is The Globe and Mail — but that still only leaves us at two pieces of substantive coverage in real media, which still isn't enough if NMUSIC #1 is still the only notability claim that's actually in play because nothing stated by either of those sources assists passage of any other NMUSIC criterion. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) is fairly brief coverage of her in a book (about something else, but that doesn't matter) which also mentions other coverage relating to her contributions to the same film soundtrack, (2) has, on page 148 content about her, (3) - not convinced by your analysis, (4) is decent coverage, (5) is an index, but it mentions an article reviewing one of her concerts, (6) appears to have a section on Copeland, although just be inclusion of one of her works in the book. So in summary, I disagree that these "count for nothing at all". --Michig (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) "Brief" coverage in a book about something else falls under "namecheck", not under "substantive coverage of him" — so no, it doesn't assist in demonstrating notability. (2) A simple entry in a discography list is not "coverage about" a person. (3) I don't care if you're "convinced" by my analysis or not, because I am entirely correct about what the "Museum of Canadian Music" site is: it is not a real museum with a real physical location, but a user-generated website that exists precisely to help obscure Canadian musicians get their names back out there by republicizing themselves. That's even what it says about itself on its own About Us page. (4) The only piece of "decent" coverage we have, toward a guideline that requires more than just one piece of decent coverage. (5) Mentions an article reviewing one of her concerts, without specifying where said article exists? That counts for about 100 per cent less than you seem to think it does (p.s. it could be an unreliable zine or an internal organizational newsletter that doesn't pass GNG either, for all we know.) (6) There's no evidence that that source is anything more than a discography list — but discography lists do not assist in demonstrating notability. I am completely correct in my reading of all six of those sources and what they do or don't contribute toward passage of WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's been involved in numerous notable projects, article includes links to multiple mainstream sources. Not sure why this is even controversial honestly, but it seems like a straightforward keep to me. (as it did when I wrote the original stub.)NoahB — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahB (talk • contribs) 22:08, December 3, 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and I'd add that the article about him coming out as transgender is linked to a musical performance. I think it's really a stretch to say that that doesn't count towards the music notability guidelinesNoahB — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahB (talk • contribs) 22:14, December 3, 2017 (UTC)
"Musical performances" only contribute notability per WP:NMUSIC if they reperesent a national tour that's generating consistent coverage of the entire endeavour. One standalone performance in one location satisfies no NMUSIC criterion at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this is unlikely to become a long article, what is there is decently sourced. The in-depth articles in the CBC and the Globe and Mail are enough to qualify. Brad v 19:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.