Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Swift

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Swift[edit]

Austin Swift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "actor". Only notable for being Taylor Swift's brother. Notability is not inherited. Natg 19 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He will remain Taylor Swift's brother for a lifetime I guess; so that can't be helped and would be mentioned in news articles covering him. At the same time, he has been covered extensively by independent reliable sources. What would be your opinion about the following sample? (I am quoting only four right now, but there's quite a few similar ones):
  1. Austin Swift on His Acting Debut in I.T., Working with Pierce Brosnan, and Big Sis Taylor's Advice About Hollywood, InStyle Magazine
  2. 15 Reasons We're Obsessed with Austin Swift, People
  3. Ruby Rose and Martha Hunt Cheer On Taylor Swift's Younger Brother Austin as He Makes His Bigscreen Debut
  4. Ten things to know about Taylor Swift's younger brother, Cosmopolitan
Would you not believe that irrespective of the subject being Swift's brother, the sources cover him significantly? Thanks. Lourdes 01:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 queries please (a thanks in advance for answering)
  1. WP:INHERITED, which you quote, mentions: "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects... Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject." Do you believe that zero independent reliable sources have taken notice of the subject? Or are you interpreting INHERITED in any other manner which is not clear to me?
  2. "Always in the context of Taylor Swift" (your words). Would you only accept sources which do not mention Taylor Swift at all even once throughout the article? If you wish, I can give you the word/paragraph count of the amount of significant coverage of Austin Swift in the said sources where Taylor Swift has not been mentioned. Will that help you reassess these sources? Do you believe that despite all the sources mentioned in the article having Austin Swift as the main, primary subject of discussion in the in-depth coverage, we should still disregard these sources because the name of Taylor Swift is mentioned once/twice/thrice in the said respective articles?
  3. Do you consider People Magazine a "gossip magazine" (in your words)? And InStyle magazine too? Would you therefore recommend that People and InStyle should not be used in Wikipedia articles despite their having in-depth coverage?
  4. Are you saying that the significant coverage of Austin Swift within the multiple articles of People and InStyle (all documented in the Wikipedia article and two here too[1][2][3]) should be rejected because they, in your opinion, have click bait titles? So should sources of celebrities from People Magazine and InStyle magazine with seemingly click-bait titles not be used in Wikipedia articles despite their having in-depth coverage?
  5. Are you also saying that the in-depth coverage provided by People magazine is "pretty bad" (in your words)? And so is InStyle? If yes, why do you say so? Can you point out separately the reasons for each source, which make you believe these are "pretty bad"? I can give you the word/paragraph count of the said sources which contain coverage of the subject. Would that help you reassess the sources?
Your replies would help me understand how you assess the relevance of such in-depth sources, and improve my understanding too. Thanks. Lourdes 05:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The guidelines require roles in acting that are multiple and significant. We have one article here entiled "blink and you will miss him". He only gets notice because he is the brother of Taylor Swift, not because his acting has actually been multiple or significant. He may go on to having multiple significant roles, but he has not yet, so we should delete the article at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you purely referring to NACTOR? Would you also comment on whether the subject qualifies on BASIC/BIO/GNG? Thanks. Lourdes 04:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hits on Google News do seem to be in depth coverage about him, even if they reference him in the title as TSwift's brother. [4], [5], [6]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NACTOR because roles appear to be in minor productions, article relies too heavily on notable sibling Seasider91 (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. I asked this of another editor above (didn't get a response though to any of my queries above). Are you purely referring to NACTOR? Would you also comment on whether the subject qualifies on BASIC/GNG purely based on the sources? And what do you mean by "article relies too heavily on notable sibling"? The stub has only one line that refers to the sister. Your clarification will help me understand your viewpoint. Thanks. Lourdes 11:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello Lourdes, the subject has not, in my opinion, appeared in multiple significant productions, nor does he have a cult following, nor has he made a unique contribution to a field of entertainment. I also feel that the coverage is trivial at best. Seasider91 (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:N and GNG. N. GASIETA|talk 14:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naushaad Gasieta (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Comment Analysis of sources:
  1. 10 Things to Know About Taylor Swift's Younger Brother Cosmopolitan - A collection of 15 instagram posts/retweets of Taylor Swift/Austin swift with 1 or 2 sentence description of each. Hardly any secondary coverage and this isn't even an article.
  2. 15 Reasons We're Obsessed with Austin Swift People - Similar share of instagram posts with very little coverage
  3. Ruby Rose and Martha Hunt Cheer On Taylor Swift's Younger Brother Austin as He Makes His Bigscreen Debut People - Once again, similar share of instagram posts with a brief mention
  4. Blink And You'll Miss Taylor Swift's Brother In New 'I.T.' Trailer Huffington Post contributor - Once again a share of instagram posts
  5. Taylor Swift's Brother Austin Swift Makes His Acting Debut in I.T. Trailer Eonline - very similar to the Huffington post source above.
  6. Austin Swift on His Acting Debut in I.T., Working with Pierce Brosnan, and Big Sis Taylor's Advice About Hollywood Article consists of quotes by Swift and is in the context of the movie
  7. A couple of more in People by the same author [7],[8] in ref 3
The coverage here is either gossipy reshares of instagram posts with little secondary coverage or brief quotes from Austin Swift in the context of the movie and Taylor Swift. This is essentially a BLP1E at this point. As for the questions about People magazine - usually we try not to use gossipy sources. Over here, the sources which are simply resharing those instagram posts are not useful because we specifically require significant content written by a third party about the subject.
In addition most of the coverage is simply because he has a notable sibling. Whether we should create a standalone page for the subject depends on the quality and extent of coverage. For example Hillary Clinton has a separate page because there are indepth secondary sources focusing on her and showing that she is notable independent of that fact that she is related to Bill Clinton. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Taylor Swift (redirect comment added subsequently. Lourdes 09:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)) I'm tending towards delete, given the source analysis provided by Lemongirl and other editors at this Afd. Lourdes 15:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- sources discussed at this AfD have not been sufficient to overcome WP:INHERIT; a vanity page at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect as clearly the only claims of significance are familial, and nothing at all convincing beyond that. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, when the titles and the leads of the sources which are supposed to provide the notability refer to the subject as "xxx's brother", we know it is a WP:INHERITED case. The subject does not even have an actual career, at best it's too soon. Cavarrone 10:48, 31 October 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Austin_Swift&oldid=1089513349"