Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gino McKoy

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. The only in-depth coverage is in WordPress and primary sources, such as interviews, which are not reliable for establishing notability. No in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources has been found. Films that may eventually take the subject past the notability bar are stated to be in production or in development, but they can't establish notability before they actually exist. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gino McKoy[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage of this individual in multiple sources. Coming in 3rd in a youth competition, and having his song briefly mentioned in a couple of media sources does not rise to the notability level of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 12:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources listed under "references and external links" represent reliable source coverage about him — they all just briefly namecheck his existence, while failing to have him as their subject — and nothing here entitles him to an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about him to satisfy WP:GNG. We are not an alternative LinkedIn on which people are entitled to have articles just for existing — certain specific markers of achievement have to be attained, and certain specific standards of sourcing have to be present to support them, but nothing here satisfies either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The individual has received significant coverage in a number of reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject, in compliance with WP:GNG guidelines. Placement in youth compete is biographical article content and should not be taken into consideration as proof or verification of the individual’s notability as proposed by the WP:AFD nominator. The article and its contents re in compliance with WP:BLP guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.2.183 (talk • contribs)

— 68.47.2.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If he's received significant coverage in a number of reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject, then kindly show some actual evidence of that. The "references" present in this article right now sure don't show it — he's not the subject of any of those sources, but merely has his existence namechecked within coverage of other things, which isn't what WP:GNG requires. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. I am unable to find in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. gongshow talk 00:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The included references provide secondary sources of biographical information and also directly reference the individual’s original creative endeavors and are in compliance with the subject criteria. Included references meet requirements for significant coverage not requiring original research, are reliable secondary sources and are independent of the subject. WP:GNG stipulates that the subject is not required to be the main topic of the source material. This individual's notability is not temporary; references span from 2006 to present. WP policies stipulate that fame or infamy is not to be considered as an inclusion requirement. As for meeting or not meeting WP:MUSICBIO at this time the information included in the article can be considered as biographical and not necessarily subject to those requirements as individual meets other inclusion criteria. As the article cannot be unilaterally excluded due the subject's meeting of other criteria, the article should remain. — Preceding Nerdbyte comment added by Nerdbyte (talk • contribs) 01:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does state that a person does not need to be the main subject of a source, true — but it also states that a person does still have to be more than simply mentioned in a source that contains no substantive or useful information about him at all besides that mention of his name. That's what you're missing here. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wp:Too soon. I'm on the fence about his current notability but if the future pans out as it looks like in the article then, at that point, subject will easily cross into notability. --Ifnord (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my prior comments. My evaluation of the sources shows that more than one provide a substantive bio of the individual, including personal background history and profession. The article outlines his background in music and film, leading up to current involvement and corroborates with individuals and relationships to whom his relationships can be cross-referenced. Articles also document the history of his production company as well as office locations and project slate. An original composition is used as key a point of comparison of music as leveraged in context to audience perception of athletic players in a college textbook which was published a decade ago. Sources referencing his creative endeavors include project budget, timeline, cast and crew, distribution rights, all of which speak directly to his role as producer of these films and outlining his involvement as screenwriter. News dating back to 2006 corroborates his role as composer and musician. The second bio written specifically about him outlines in more detail his creative involvement in referenced projects; thus he is the primary subject of more than one reference and as the subject of the articles refer directly to his involvement in his industry, it absolutely qualifies as more than a passing mention. The articles in which he is the primary subject substantiate and support the other references as his role is clearly outlined. Once more, as he meets more notability requirements than he does not, I cannot vote in favor of deletion. Nerdbyte (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources present in the article that provide a substantive bio of McKoy are WordPress blogs and primary sources, which are not types of sourcing that assist in demonstrating or building notability at all. Exactly zero of the reliable sources present in the article do anything more than namecheck his existence within coverage of something else. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 10 August 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.