Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Brannan

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 keep, see talk page for analysis. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Brannan[edit]

Jay Brannan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A biography of a marginally notable individual who has expressed, in OTRS ticket 2008020210003368, a strong desire that it be deleted, not least because much of the information is (he says) wrong. It has been deleted before, but the previous versions were abject nonsense. This is not abject nonsense, but the subject says it's largely incorrect, and there are very few reliable sources we could use to fix that, especially since he has stated in no uncertain terms that he's not interested in helping us to do so. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is my default "vote" for anyone of marginal or unclear notability who wants their own article deleted. I feel in such cases we should respect the subject's wishes. Besides, as written thee subject does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparenly you haven't seen Shortbus then. He's not just notable for his music but he does pass WP:MUSIC. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 20:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - we don't delete articles just because subjects of the article don't like what's been written about them. Further, I'd say you were out of line by removing sourced content and then nomming the article for deletion. You should restore the content immediately. Regarding your edit summary, Subject says he has no interest in pursuing a gay pride agenda, and also refuses permission for the photo, for which he says he owns copyright. Removing both for now, as a courtesy. It does not matter what the subject of the article has an interest in. We don't pander to article subjects "wants" in articles about them. With regards to the photo, Brannan does not own the copyright to it. It was taken by Jason Anfinsen who attended one of Brannan's performances - Oct 16, 2007; Mercury Lounge, New York City to be exact. Regarding the "openly gay" content that was removed by the nom, when a person has achieved that level of notability that a biography is acceptable, all known facts about the person have an equal chance of being represented. The person, short of pointing out libelous statements, has no special prerogative to exclude certain details. We do not allow this priviledge to Ann Coulter, we do not allow it to Jimmy Wales, we allow it to nobody. It is a red-herring argument that only issues *related* to notability are included. We include a biography based on notability, but once included, each statement does not need to pass notability to be included.- ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 20:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, yes, we do if the subject is of marginal notability. Daniel Brandt is the canonical example. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the only way I can see keeping this is permanent semi-protection? Is this guy at the same level as George W. Bush in terms of notability? If he is, Wikipedia has no sense of proportion. Blueboy96 01:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous ways of addressing vandalism concerns the best of which is likely good writing supported by RS. And Brandt's 14th AfD suggests that maybe these two cases are a little different. Brannan is a singer and actor, ie. entertainer, performing for the public, Brandt had a unique route of infamy. Benjiboi 06:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (can we use WP:SNOW here?). He may not be super-famous but he certainly meets notability for bios. If there is something incorrect then source the correct info and move on. There's no reason we can't use verifiable sources similar to media outlets but agree if information is wrong then we should fix it. If the subject and nom want removal of his being gay then they should take it up with those who report it and not wikipedia, our stating what a source has published is not "pursuing a gay pride agenda". That would actually be problematic POV issue, instead we write articles about what gay pride and gay rights are and what people believe is the gay agenda. Benjiboi 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:ATT, we could have said that he had discussed his sexuality in an interview, or discussed the difficulties of growing up gay in Texas. What we actually did was to edit war with the subject over a statement that he is openly gay, a form of words he clearly dislikes. Please do make an effort to be sensitive to the feelings of article subjects. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff Marx had an issue with "openly gay" in that he found it offensive that it had to be spelled out he is "open" as if it is ever something that should be concealed. --David Shankbone 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I can see why that particular form of words might be an issue for a lot of reasons. Edit-warring with the subject over it did not make him feel warm and loved. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we're not here to make people feel warm and loved. And it wasn't clear, until much later, that that "edit warring" wasn't simply reverting more vandalism to a page that has a history of it. Benjiboi 10:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally veer away from the term "openly gay" - it's subjective and means many things to many people. Guy's suggestion above about how it could be handled is instructive IMO. Orderinchaos 13:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as he totally meets WP:BIO with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Multiple attempts at engaging the subject about his article, including determining what he sees is "wrong" with it, have met with resistance and no further indication about what might actually need fixing. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion, but this is in the interest of transparency. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no issue with alerting the projects who oversee an article, in this case the LGBT project. --David Shankbone 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allstarecho canvassed rather more widely than that. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "canvas".. I informed people who have participated on the article's talk page, that the article was up for deletion, something you should have done. Were you trying to sneak it by people hoping it would be deleted with no fanfare? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 21:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I did was answer an email from a hurt and upset article subject, whose opinion of Wikipedians is that they all act like, well, like you did just then, in fact. We've managed to give him the impression that we do things just because he doesn't want them done. And looking at some of the reaction here, he may well be at least partly right. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - quite notable, with coverage everywhere from the New York Times to a cover piece in The Advocate (though that one's paywalled). Between the music and the movie, he seems to pass. Deleting instead of responding to concerns through editing is a bit harsh...Tony Fox (arf!) 21:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although he seems like a jerk, the article is innocuous. Wikipedia isn't here to be controlled by the people we write about. It's one thing if something is blatantly untrue. It's another thing if they have these vane "I can't be categorized!" notions about themselves. If he's not gay, is he bi? If he's not bi, is he straight? "I'm none of those things, I'm my own creature! I hate you!" Pfft...whatever. --David Shankbone 21:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please don't make personally-attacking comments about living people in AfD debates. FCYTravis (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability for entertainers, the gay thing is sourced, and there is no deadline— so as long as there aren't BLP violations, I see no reason to delete. Granted, the notability is weak, too, but ironically as a direct result of the guy repeatedly trying to delete the bad publicity (WP:COI), it was actually revealed by other editors that he actually had significantly more verifiable coverage in secondary sources than I had initially thought. That is, I would have happily argued a delete due to notability issues, but as a direct result of the Streisand effect, it seems that the stuff the dude was trying to delete actually ended up helping to solidify grounds for inclusion. :P Let that be a lesson to future editors: always try to use the proper channels. --slakr\ talk / 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brannan is notable per WP:BIO, not only for his music, but especially for the movie Shortbus (which also has a song of his) with sufficient reliable sources. All the other issues brought up by him and about him should continue to be addressed on the talk page. And please people, lets all assume good faith. — Becksguy (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of questionable notability, article is potentially incorrect with few RS to fix it with and subject has requested deletion. ViridaeTalk 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The whole thing seems a bit ridiculous, honestly, the entire point of being an actor and musician is to become notable, otherwise you wouldn't seek the public eye. It seems the subject is upset about his article mentioning his homosexuality, which is another issue completely. If we delete it, and he continues on his career, eventually someone will recreate it as he becomes more notable. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They guy certainly pass WP:BIO and encyclopedic integrity should be the priority here. Obviously being a BLP, and in the interest of getting it absolutely right, the subject's concerns should be heard and responded to but deleting the article is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There is already serious discussion on the talk page about improving the article to address the known concerns. While it would be ideal for Mr. Brannan to cordially work with the article's editors to come to a speedy and more amicable resolution, if he wishes to persist in hostilities all we can do is rise above the fracas and focus on making the most encyclopedic and neutral article we can. Deletion just for the sake of deletion is not compatible with Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. AgneCheese/Wine 22:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean anything in the history that might be a serious BLP issue. BLP problems don't trump WP:BIO, as BLP isn't a deletion rationale. However, I would strongly agree with JzG's assessment that these BLP issues are serious and require serious attention. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom, notability is marginal, and sourcing is horrible. WP:BLP most certainly trumps WP:BIO Mr.Z-man 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please expand on what you mean when you say that BLP (not a deletion rationale) is the reason for deleting an article that passes the community-accepted notability guidelines? --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where in WP:BLP does it say that it isn't a deletion reason? WP:BIO says we can have an article, not that we must. In a case of marginal notability where the article is causing the subject serious problems (I've seen the emails to OTRS), we should definitely listen to WP:BLP (we should always listen to BLP). I see no reason why Wikipedia will be harmed by removing this article. "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'." Mr.Z-man 23:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where in BLP does it say that articles are supposed to be deleted if they have BLP violations? "Delete due to BLP violations" is an affirmative claim, the burden is on you to explain how BLP is a valid deletion rationale. BLP is a great rationale for fixing the heck out of an article. Not nuking it, esp. if it meets BIO (even, according to you, marginally). --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, if an article's history is so riddled with BLP violations that it can't be rehabbed, it should be deleted.Blueboy96 00:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read my keep rationale? The article's history isn't really relevant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought that oversighting the offending versions would be a way to keep it--but that would basically mean deleting it and starting from scratch. Blueboy96 02:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean your vote is "delete and immediately recreate BLP-compliant version"? The problems in the article's history with vandalism or BLP violations really don't amount to substantial delete rationales when the subject is notable and we can tidy up the history in some other way. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They do when the subject of the article objects to its existence as written and there's not a whole lot to work with in this article's present incarnation. So yes, delete it ... but without prejudice if enough sources can be found to merit the effort it would take to rein in the BLP violations. Blueboy96 19:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see any concrete suggestions about what in the article violates BLP, or in fact what in the article might even be considered problematic. These supposed OTRS emails, the subjects vague comments in his blog, and various editors waving hands don't add up to concrete issues. The article as it stands could use more sources, but that's in no way a reason for deletion. The man passes WP:BIO and unless honest real BLP violations are stated openly, we're simply bowing to this man's wishes, not creating an encyclopedia. Would someone please actually specify what supposed BLP violations exist? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, and anyone else with access to the info-en quality queue, can confirm that the emails most definitely exist. Mr.Z-man 03:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt Brannan has sent emails. What I am requesting is specific indications of the supposed BLP violations and/or what is "wrong" with the article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it should be noted that the article subject did first try to engage with the community User:Jaybrannan and was blocked. He was then directed to OTRS User_talk:Jaybrannan#Open Ticket Request System, to trust them to advocate for him and address concerns within policy. That is what has happened to say that you doubt the email exists, ticket number 2008020210003368 as quoted in the nomination does exist. Gnangarra 04:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated several times, I don't doubt that Brannan sent emails. He's been pretty vocal about not liking the article. What I'm curious about is what exactly is either a BLP violation and/or "wrong" with the article. And also for the record, "engaging the community" consisted of blanking the article and pleading to have his article deleted - using the same language - a total of ten times in one day. That's not exactly "engaging". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes the threshold for inclusion under notability. Lawrence § t/e 23:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for now. I don't see the multiple independent reliable sources establishing the notability of the subject. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the article is under full protection but two sources that could be added is the Vancouver Sun article mentioning the internet phenomenon of his music and the interest by Ashwin Sood and Nettwerk in producing him. There is also the write up by Xtra West, Vancouvers Gay Newspaper publication, about his Shortbus role and some background. AgneCheese/Wine 23:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couple more reliable sources There is the New York Times write up by Fred Bernstein that is devoted to Brannan. Another New York Times piece about Shortbus that includes interview with Brannan and discuss some of his background and how it affected his role. There is also an offline mention in Out Magazine & Rolling Stones that can be hunted down. The closest online source for their existence is Brannan's own press page. It looks like there is quite a bit of sourcing available to establish notability. AgneCheese/Wine 00:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that someone has already pointed to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. That, with the existence of some sources, makes a reasonable argument for notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The subject has asked for deletion and indicated it is not factually inaccurate. Given that, we should only keep it if 1) we are sure of its notability - i.e. we'd be weaker as an encyclopedia without it. and 2) We are damn sure it is fair, accurate and impeccably sourced. Well, on 1) we are not, and on 2) not a chance. Far more damage is to be done by keeping something we don't need and can't be sure about than having nothing, so the conclusion is obvious.--Docg 00:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete okay, incorrect BLP? WP:IDIOT applies here, guys. Besides, he's very marginally notable, so there should really no reason to keep it. Will (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the subject is borderline notable and as per the basis of WP:BLP do no harm given the subject has taken the time to make contact via OTRS. I'd also suggest that care be taken in the way people comment during this discussion and that the AfD get courtesy blanked as well. Gnangarra 00:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • updated the situation is that the subjects notability has been established to my thinking, yet in recognition of the subjects concerns it may be more appropriate to actually delete the article and then create a new thus removing the concerns of BLP in the history, Gnangarra 13:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Marginal notability at best. Pburka (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yeah, actually we do delete articles about nonentities who don't want to be written about. Why? Two reasons. Firstly, they're nonentities, and secondly, they don't want to be written about. Any questions? --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete and redirect to Shortbus Looking at the history, it seems the only way the article can be kept is to leave it under more or less permanent semi-protection. Unfortunately, this guy's notability isn't strong enough that it can be kept under those circumstances. Blueboy96 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article that is a vandal-magnet or that requires semi-protection is not necessarily subject to deletion (see Pokemon), and such does not (or rather, should not) influence how we evaluate the article's notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep, but delete edit history and rewrite from scratch per arguments from Orderinchaos and Snowspinner. Blueboy96 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The volume of users commenting on this one is interesting. Anyway, I think the sources shown here in the topic, the New York Times ones, definitely confer notability. His opinion of his own article shouldn't matter. matt91486 (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but remove anything that is not sourced. Notability is clearly asserted through independent third parties, and the opinion of the subject on the article is irrelevant in my view. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. A real live person is the subject of this article. He's not so very notabile that we would loose anything by not having an article on him; on the other hand, Wikipedia is so pervasive that he feels that he is being damaged by the article. It's very little to us to delete the article, and apparently means a lot to him. Delete it and leave him alone. ➪HiDrNick! 02:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see nothing in the present version which is not in the reliable sources, based on clear cooperation with the subject. Based on what he says about his career on his website, Possibly the article should highlight his songs as much as his movie roles. DGG (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- marginally notable subject requesting deletion. In case the article survives AfD: I support Guy's courtesy edits in view of the over-emphasis on sexuality in a biography that's based on pretty poor sources as it is. From WP:BLP: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic". For the meaning of "a neutral biography", try WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT. Avb 14:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Here is a 2006 NYT Real Estate article that may e.g. help inform editors debating the notability issue here, if only because it details the subject's housing arrangements and income. Oh, and I have no objection to the article saying he's gay; it's just that picking one or two scenes from a movie and turning it into a large part of the actor's biography looks like a clear case of undue weight to me. Avb 15:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that's an argument for editing, not deletion.DGG (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and presented as such. You can find my arguments for deletion after Delete and before "In case the article survives AfD". Avb 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I saw Shortbus a month ago. After the credits rolled, I looked it up on Wikipedia and went through all the actors' bios, including Jay Brannan's. Why? Because I wanted to know more about them, to see what else they had been in etc., etc. I was seeking knowledge. Now, people are voting delete on this article because they claim the encyclopedia will not be worse off without it. But the fact that he is a successful actor and musician, as established by the Googlers on this AfD, means that people will want to know more about him. I did. That's where Wikipedia comes in - we write articles on people that wouldn't make the EB, because we want to spread knowledge. Trying to be more elitist doesn't help. The fact that the subject doesn't want an article is irrelevant, I'm sure Ted Haggard doesn't want his. And finally, unrelated to the Afd, Jay Brannon is comfortable with the fact that I've seen him suck another's man dick but not that I know he's gay? Wtf? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP issues aside, the guy really isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia article, not unless you've confused this place with IMDB or some other directory service. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes our notability inclusion criteria. If abuse of the article is so great, then we still have the option of full protection with edits being approved through discussion. Insane, yes, and I hope it doesn't come to that, but it's an example that clearly shows that deletion is unnecessary. We have the tools to write a good article about this guy and comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV, lets not pretend we don't. -- Ned Scott 09:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets our standards; see cover story on the Advocate, New York Times, Xtra West, Vancouver Sun. Coverage dates back about 18 months, so not fleeting. I am also inclined to vote "keep" on the basis that he apparently lied about owning the copyright to an image (according to nom). I hope this photo is restored to the article if the result is to keep. Welly bump fandango (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Welly bump fandango (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cheeser1 (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily passes WP:N guidelines; non-trivial coverage in New York Times, cover story for The Advocate and more. Sources just need to be added to the article. BLP issues (whatever they may be) can be dealt with by editing. --BelovedFreak 11:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The BLP concept of "do no harm" should be paramount in deciding what should be in the article, but there's no question that the guy is notable. Maybe we should deal with this situation by deleting the edit history, stubbing the article and starting again. Orderinchaos 13:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject appears notable. I have looked at the OTRS ticket, and don't see any real issues here - there's nothing in it that Mr. Brannan hasn't posted publicly at his blog here: [1]. This amounts largely to someone who doesn't want to be in Wikipedia. I'm willing to discuss the merits of courtesy deletion, but to have accurate content removed because of bizarre claims that noting somebody's publicly claimed sexuality is "pursuing a gay pride agenda" and to have freely licensed photos removed under false copyright pretenses poisons the discussion beyond usefulness, and in that case, my instinct is to keep it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm actually not completely convinced he even passes WP:BIO - a fairly minor part in a film (the NYT story mentions him, but isn't about him), something on YouTube, and a few songs released via MySpace? Marginal at best. Add in the possible BLP and the subject's concerns, and you get a clear course of action. If Kept, User:Orderinchaos' suggestion about deleting, stubbing and restarting should be taken.Black Kite 16:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Notability The following is a response to all the editors that have expressed concerns about Jay Brannan's notability. There are way more than sufficient non-trivial, reliable sources to establish his notability as a singer/songwriter and actor. Much of his notability came as a result of his role in the ground breaking movie Shortbus (2006). I might also point out that Shortbus premiered at the influential and prestigious Cannes Film Festival and won numerous awards at film festivals. He was one of the lead roles in that movie, as is expressed in many of the following. He is now concentrating on his music career. Any potential or claimed WP:BLP issues are not commented on here. The following references were complied (in no particlar order) from comments here, his article, and Brannan's website press page.
  1. New York Times, October 8, 2006. Article specifically about him, his apartment, music and Shortbus. Highly relevant. [2]
  2. New York Times, September 24, 2006. Article on Shortbus including a significant, non-trivial amount of coverage on Brannan specifically. [3]
  3. Advocate, October 24, 2006. Cover story in the American national gay newspaper. here and full article on Brannan's press page [4]
  4. Attitude, December 2006. Cover story in British award winning gay lifestyle monthly magazine. Full article on Brannan's press page [5]
  5. Next Magazine, September 15, 2006. Cover story in New York City gay lifestyle weekly magazine. Full article on Brannan's press page. [6]
  6. Next Magazine, January 6, 2006. New York City gay lifestyle weekly magazine. Full article on Brannan's press page. [7]
  7. Cincinnati Enquirer weekly CINWEEKLY, October 25, 2006. Full article on Brannan's press page. [8]
  8. Variety, May 21, 2006. Article is mostly on Shortbus, but does mention Brannan. [9]
  9. Dazed & Confused, December 2006. British style magazine with article on Brannan's role in Shortbus. Full article on Brannan's press page. [10]
  10. Zoo Magazine, 2007 # 14. Interview about his music and Shortbus. Full article on Brannan's press page. [11]
  11. The Vancouver Sun, January 26, 2008. Newspaper article mostly on a music producer that wants to manage Brannan. [12]
  12. Xtra West, January 18, 2008. Vancouvers (Canada) Gay Newspaper. Article on Brannan. [13]
  13. Gay Times, July 2007. The leading gay magazine in UK. Music issue with article mostly on Brannan's music, but also memtions Shortbus. Article on Brannan's press page. [14]
  14. Connecticut Post, October 22, 2006. Newspaper article mostly on Brannan in Shortbus, but also some on his music. Full article on Brannan's press page. [15]
  15. Logo, July 30, 2007. Gay TV channel. [16]
  16. Logo, January 25, 2008. Gay TV channel. [17]

We know that there is more on Brannan, such as what ever is in Out Magazine and Rolling Stone and others. If anyone can find them, or anything else significant, feel free to add to my list. This should unequivocally put any claims about marginal notability to rest. He clearly more than passes WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Fair is fair, so I ask the closing admin, and especially those with notability concerns to examine or re-examine their recommendations in light of this list, since we can't edit the article. — Becksguy (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Covered multiple times in reliable sources. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if this was not a BLP and was not an OTRS issue, this article is still crap by our standards and needs a total overhaul if kept. He's notable for a role in a movie, the article devotes a total of one sentence to it, and goes out of its way to mention that the film "includes graphic depictions of sexual activity." We're using YouTube as a source to prove that his YouTube videos are inclusion-worthy and there's no source for the actual biographical details. Mr.Z-man 22:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it does need an overhaul, but it's fully protected at this point. Otherwise I would have included the refs in the article, rather than listing them here in detail. And that would have most likely led to rewriting and improvement, per WP:HEY. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to edit per WP:DEL. And that includes WP:BLP concerns, unless it's impossible to fix, which is obviously not the case here. There is more than adequate sourcing available for the article as it is, including the "actual biographical details". A general question: Where, exactly, are the BLP issues? — Becksguy (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For this we have {{editprotected}}. Please do propose changes, it can only help. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A multitude of reliable sources all support his being notable. Even many of the Delete !votes say that he's not "notable enough," allowing that he does have some notability. Every subject wishes their entry was the way they'd like it to be, but that's not the standard here. This biography meets our requirements for inclusion, and, while well-meant, bringing this AfD seems like something of a bad idea, considering that Brannan's notability has been easily established. Edit it & improve it; just don't delete it. --SSBohio 06:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm surprised to read such comments as "Brannan's notability has been easily established". He's listed seventh or thereabouts among the actors in one movie. He's recorded a song or three. That's about it. I took the top of the list of press mentions above, the one from the NYT, and read it. It's not about Brannan; it's about accommodation, and it takes Brannan as an example of somebody in a particular situation and incidentally writes a little about him: the subject could just as well be the guy next door to him. Then I read the second article in the list, the other one from NYT. Here, Brannan's treated as just one of the main actors in the movie; he's not given any particular prominence. ¶ True, Brannan has some notability; it's not open and shut. But if he's anywhere near borderline and doesn't want an article, spare him the article. And if that doesn't work -- "No, he's condemned to an article! He can't escape! Nobody with a smidgen of notability can escape! To say otherwise is 'deletionism'!" -- then have the maturity to remember that so far as he is notable it's for his music or his acting or both, not for his sex life/interests or lack thereof. Unless of course this "wikipedia" invention is just tabloidopedia. -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (1) Did you look at the other entries in my list? Zoo magazine had a interview with him. The Connecticut Post piece was on Brannan. Both on just him. The Gay Times piece was exclusively on Brannan, as was Dazed & Confused, the first Next article, and Xtra West. In the Advocate cover story on Shortbus, Brannan was very prominent. Same for attitude. (2) The first NYT article could also be about this interesting guy that got their attention due to being in Shortbus, with a tie into a really small apartment and how he copes with that and his creative life. It's speculation to say that it could have been the guy next door, since it wasn't, and we don't know the editors intent. The article's lede is exclusively about Brannan, it doesn't even mention the apartment until the third graph. (3) And I have found, so far, about 20 songs by Brannan. (4) And, yes, Brannan is listed as 7th in the movie credits. However, that's still a staring role (and listed as such) among a fairly large group of 43 collaborative actors (excluding the two bands and the extras) in a project. Also, Brannan, together with seven other actors, were nominated for Best Ensemble Cast in The Gothan Awards (for Shortbus in 2006), per IMDB. (5) Yes, I agree that the article needs more work for balance and completeness. Others do also. (6) And when do we let the subjects of articles control what is said about them, assuming no BLP violations. The New York Times doesn't allow that. (7) Would you please take another look at what is laid out here? I think it's more than sufficient to keep. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed - Shortbus is, by any measure, a weird film - an ensemble cast of deliberately unknown actors. I do wish people who didn't really know much about it would consider whether this is an error that should be corrected before they comment on the AfD. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a quick look. Yes, there's gossipy press coverage of him. So, he's put out 20 songs, not two or three. But you're sounding a bit desperate when you say that somebody who's seventh in the list of credits has a starring role: even in the risible Oscars, a number three (forget seven) only qualifies as "supporting" actor, I believe. And he's one of an ensemble cast that was nominated for best ensemble cast; well, good for him, but to me this too looks some way short of stardom. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. Hoary, you are attempting to apply a Hollywood frame of reference to a move that's about as un-Hollywood as one can get, and yet still be a movie. This was a collaborative project, not a Hollywood product where a few box office stars were hired, together with a director and supporting actors and extras, and a budget. All 43 actors participated and collaborated with the director in creating this movie. To be seventh in a class of 43 is an achievement as there is no single star here. Your comments and Phil Sandifer's comment lead me to believe that you have a fatal misunderstanding about this movie and about Brannans role in it. And about his notability. Have you seen the movie? Heard any of his music? Brannan did a wonderful and extremely difficult job in Shortbus, and no one here wants to hurt him. — Becksguy (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient notability. Dlabtot (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Protection The article is no longer protected. — Becksguy (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ensemble actor in a movie (or a couple of movies), minor singer/songwriter, and precedent exists to delete marginally notable articles for which the subject has requested deletion. When he wins an Oscar or is the chair of a Fortune 100 company, it's not up for discussion. Until he does something that's truly notable, he's only marginally notable, and I see no reason not to consider his wishes in here. These article subjects are real people who have real emotions that should be taken into account. - Philippe | Talk 18:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should consider their feelings, but that doesn't mean that the articles should be deleted, as these BLP issues should be addressed by editing and discussion on the talk page. Frankly, given the compiled list, I fail to understand how you don't see notability. Two NYT articles, and a Advocate cover article, plus all the rest? It's not rational to ignore that notability. Notability has nothing to do with feelings, and I suspect these feelings are wrongly influencing decisions in some cases. And that makes for bad encyclopedia writing and editing, regardless of the direction of the tide. We insist on reliable sources, NPOV, and balance to get as far away as possible from subjective interpretations and emotional responses to subjects. Don't you agree? — Becksguy (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per BLP concern. Clears notability threshold but not sufficiently to overcome Brannan's own request to delete article. --A. B. (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been asked before, and maybe I missed it, but where does it say that the subject of article has the right to say "delete me from your encyclopedia"? And isn't that precedent highly problematic if, say, Karl Rove told you to delete his article? Or do we only honor requests of subects that aren't too notable (splitting even more WP:N hairs)? --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brannan is not a far-right Svengali who worked tirelessly and successfully to pervert the political and legal process and destroy a nation. He's just a guy who's recorded some songs and acted in a movie, I believe. (Actually I'd never heard of him, his music, or the movie till this AfD brouhaha.) Love him [now there's a bizarre idea!] or loathe him, Rove is indubitably notable; Brannan is not. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That has nothing to do with it. This person's delete !vote was based solely on the rationale that despite being notable enough to merit an article, we must honor his request to delete the article about him. You seem to have confirmed my suspicions that some people are under the impression that some things are more notable than others (despite the fact that WP:N defines two possibilities: notable and not notable - there's only one notability threshold, and all articles have to meet it). So if Rove suggested we delete his article, obviously we can't because he's a Svengali! But since you don't think this guy is notable enough for us to keep the article (despite the fact that he's notable enough to have an article), we delete it at his request. This comes from what? And don't say BLP, because BLP does not demand we delete articles at the subject's request unless they are defamatory and cannot be fixed (not the case). -Cheeser1 (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's along the lines of my main question, also. As a musician and actor, isn't the entire purpose of his career to become notable? Working steadily in either field almost assures you of becoming so. I still feel this is a question of the subject rejecting the content of the article, and not the article itself. Snowfire51 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're talking about feelings (a most unfortunate development, I think), I increasingly feel that en:WP editors are somehow feeling jilted. ("Brannan should feel honored by an article! Why does he reject us?") Of course, I have no evidence whatever for this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why say it. And what does "feelings" have to do with notability. Notability is determined by reliable sources—which the article has in abundance—not our feelings either for or against a subject. Yes, I feel bad that Jay Brannan is upset and I can understand why he is. But I think that the article should stand on it's own merits, not because the subject is upset about it and some editors feel that as a result the article should be deleted. Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense, and is not supported in policy. Feel bad for the subject, but make these kinds of decisions rationally, unemotionally, and consistently. The place to discuss BLP issues, if they exist, (unless blatant enough to delete on sight, obviously not the case here) is within the normal editing process on the talk page. Not in an AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly and demonstrably notable, per Becksguy's admirable list above. If there are BLP issues (and it appears that there may well be), they can be dealt with by editing (including possibly starting the article again from scratch to remove offending edits from the history), and certainly don't warrant full deletion. David Mestel(Talk) 11:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Is a willing public figure. For many reasons I've explained before (see User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP for some relevant thoughts) it is unreasonable to allowed requested deletions for willing public figures. Furthermore, given Brannan's actions as an actor and in other roles he is about as willing a public figure you can get. Now, the argument can be made that one aspect of the willing public figure test doesn't apply as much here; it makes more sense when the people in question have engaged in political or other discourse in the public sphere which has real impact rather than just entertainment. However, this is balanced by the fact that acting, singing and song-writing all demonstrate what amounts to a strong interjection into the public sphere. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll also invoke WP:HOTTIE which overrides everything else. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability has clearly been established as per the list compiled above by Beckguy. We should not delete a bio just because the subject does not like it. If he has BLP concerns, he can communicate with us on the talk page or by ORTS. Aleta (Sing) 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not clearly been established, it remains ambigious and in that case, we do consider his wishes, per BLP Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)</s?[reply]
  • Strong delete - brief mention in one NYT article does not notability make. Similarly appareance in one medium notability movie with a largish ensemble cast does not notability make. At best, he his notability is ambigious which means we respect the person's wishes. Presuming he continues with his music and acting, things may change and there should be no presumption against a future article but he clearly isn't noteable at the moment Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears there are quite a few sources which people have established that are not currently used in the article nor posted in the talk page. It would be nice if people could either improve the article or at least post them in the talk page so other editors can be aware they exist without having to work through the lengthy discussion to find them Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are totally right, which is why I complied the list above. Also posted the same list on the article talk page as you suggested. I have been working on the article off line as it was fully protected during most of the AfD and using {{editprotected}} seemed unworkable for an article overhaul on a piecemeal basis. — Becksguy (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, remove any and all unverifiable content. I won't say "likely", but it is possible that nothing can be verified outside of Brannan's role in the production of the "future cult film" Shortbus (both as an actor and as a musician featured in the soundtrack). If this is true, merging might be a reasonable compromise. — CharlotteWebb 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote from the first NYT article by Bernstein that shows it isn't all about the movie (I removed whitespace and added slashes to save space): Mr. Brannan is sometimes compared to Rufus Wainwright, another openly gay young singer-songwriter. Mr. Brannan sees himself as “more like Tracy Chapman and Joni Mitchell — I go for the sound of the angry, sad woman.” In “Half-Boyfriend,” he sings: I can’t believe you’re leaving/just when I let you in/and when you had me believing/I could feel again. Luckily for Mr. Brannan, his tenor voice makes even the saddest lyrics easy on the ear. In addition, there is also an article in Gay Times primarily on his music, and almost all the references cite his music, making it notable apart from the acting gig. — Becksguy (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per, most prominently, JoshuaZ (notability is, I think it is probably fair to say, now well established [I'd suggest that the nominated version relatively persuasively demonstrated the clear notability of the subject, but any dispute about notability has, I think, been well addressed by the admirable WP:HEY work that several editors have done], and Joshua's application of the "subject requests deletion" provision of BLP is, as almost always it is, quite right). Joe 06:27, 14 February 2008 (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/Jay_Brannan&oldid=1142497755"