- DeAndre Brackensick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
(Apologies that this is so long - I wanted to be thorough in explaining my views)
Tagging editors involved with the original AfD: (AfD Nominator - John from Idegon), Piotrus, CoffeeWithMarkets, SwisterTwister, Bearian, Onel5969, Spirit of Eagle
I'm not entirely sure that this is the proper forum for this discussion, as I don't have any issues with how the closing administrator handled things, and the article was redirected, rather than deleted. But I've been told by those involved with the AfD that this is where they'd like to be having the discussion, rather than on the article's talk page. So I'm opening it here; I hope that's okay.
The article was nominated for deletion all the way back in September of last year. I was unaware of the AfD at the time, and so I didn't participate. A clear consensus was formed in favor of redirecting. The administrator, Samwalton9, properly closed the AfD as a redirect. I have no problem with that.
Rather, my problem is that those who voted in the AfD either failed to discover or neglected to mention several high-quality, independent sources that have been published on the article's subject. During the AfD, votes in favor of deletion or redirection stated, incorrectly, that Brackensick had yet to receive any considerable news coverage, separate from his appearance on the eleventh season of American Idol (a competition in which Brackensick placed eighth). At the time of the AfD though, Brackensick had already been signed to a minor label and released a single, titled "Her Crazy". This single has been the primary focus of articles published by Yahoo! [1], The York Dispatch [2] [3], and The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. [4] In the time since Brackensick first appeared on American Idol, he has also been profiled by SFGate [5], MidWeek, [6] and Campbelltown MacArthur Advertiser. [7] These profiles appeared between one and three years after Brackensick's initial involvement with Idol.
My understanding is that a musical artist really only needs to meet the general notability guidelines, as detailed at WP:Notability, in order to have an article on Wikipedia. As such, it's my opinion that all ranking contestants (by which I mean the top 12 or so) to appear on any season of American Idol should have their own articles, purely on the basis that all ranking contestants to have appeared on the show have received significant coverage from professional, third-party publications. I understand however, and respect, that many other editors disagree with me on this matter. There are definitely some who feel that only those contestants who have gone on to have music careers should have their own articles. To my knowledge, no policy or guideline has ever been written to support either of these opinions. So for the time being, it's more or less up to personal interpretation. Although I personally feel that it would be appropriate, and keeping with the policies outlined in WP:Notability, to have an article on someone like, say, CJ Harris, (who placed sixth in the thirteenth season of the show and has never released music professionally), I won't contest the deletion discussion that was held on his article awhile back, because I realize that it would simply come down to two different interpretations of what does or doesn't constitute notability. I'm not interested in arguing with anyone over purely subjective matters.
In the case of DeAndre Brackensick however, he has released music professionally, and he's received considerable news coverage for doing so. One of the editors with whom I've already discussed this matter has suggested that even with these sources, Brackensick should still not be considered notable, supposedly because he fails to meet every one of the criteria listed at WP:BAND. This strikes me as a misinterpretation of what WP:BAND is intended for though. To quote that guideline directly, musical artists "may be notable if they meet at least one" of the listed criteria - at least one.
Criteria #9 specifically seems to be mentioned from time-to-time by editors arguing against the notability of reality show contestants - this criteria says that musical artists may be notable if they have "won first, second or third place in a major music competition". Although Brackensick only placed eighth, the fact that he fails to meet this criteria shouldn't be used as an argument against his notability. Many notable artists would fail to meet this criteria, because many notable artists have never even participated in a "major music competition". That said, Brackensick does meet criteria #1, #12, and probably #4 as well. And again, in order to meet the standards of WP:BAND, he only needs to meet "at least one" of these.
None of the above-mentioned sources were included in Brackensick's article at the time of the AfD. All of them had already been published though. It's unclear to me why they escaped the attention of the participating editors. I would hope that everyone who voted did at least a cursory search beforehand, but I realize that sometimes, for whatever reason, this doesn't happen. I also realize that sometimes certain articles just don't show up in search results. I'm not upset with anyone who participated in the AfD discussion, but I do feel that they made the wrong call. Jpcase (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In the larger context, his single seems to have failed to chart. I don't see any retrospective analysis, either, saying that it's one of the 'best non-charting singles of year X' or whatever. The single also appears to have gotten no lasting coverage of any form other than a burst of interest back when he released it.
- Is he somewhat notable in terms of being a singer? I would agree, to a limited extent, as multiple sources do mention him. Look... I don't want to sound mean to him as an individual. Of course, my personal opinion of one's music and/or career doesn't matter when looking at things as an editor. Nonetheless, I've got to point out that this looks like a classic 'fifteen minutes of fame' scenario. Brackensick's popularity exists in specific connection to his role in the TV show. His notoriety is almost solely based on that and that alone. Interest in the single, in his touring, in his plans to diversify his sound, and the like seems like a complete outgrowth of what he did on Idol. He's not, at least to me, someone like a Kelly Clarkson or Simon Cowell with a sense of fundamental notoriety distinct from the show. It's fine to mention him on Wikipedia. Yet it's perfectly logical to do so in a way that explains things in the proper context, which I think is what's done having his name be a redirect to the specific Idol article.
- Again, it's hard to put these thoughts down coherently without sounding condescending to the man (maybe I just need a good nights sleep at the moment, perhaps), but I don't see the significant notoriety needed that would build a good article. I still support the decision made. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just going to note that I'm not an administrator or anything. I'm merely commenting to express the disagreement that was made back when the actual deletion decision was made, given that I was an involved party. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @CoffeeWithMarkets: Thanks for weighing in. I definitely don't get the impression that you're being condescending, although I do appreciate the civil and respectful tone of your response. All of the points that you've made are valid concerns. I'd like to go through them one-by-one and express why I feel differently:
- In the larger context, his single seems to have failed to chart. I don't see any retrospective analysis, either, saying that it's one of the 'best non-charting singles of year X' or whatever. The single also appears to have gotten no lasting coverage of any form other than a burst of interest back when he released it.
- - Brackensick certainly hasn't achieved a great deal as an artist at this point. But success and notability aren't necessarily synonymous. I'm sure there are plenty of musical artists on Wikipedia, who have never charted. Ultimately, coverage in reliable sources should, I feel, be the primary factor in determining an artist's notability, rather than commercial or critical success.
-
- - If Brackensick had only been profiled by reliable sources in the same year as his appearance on Idol, then this might be more or less the case. But he was profiled by SFGate and MidWeek a year after his season of the show had ended - and by the Campbelltown MacArthur Advertiser three years after. Yes, these publications are primarily interested in him because of his involvement with Idol. But no-one can exactly say that his fame is fleeting.
- Brackensick's popularity exists in specific connection to his role in the TV show. His notoriety is almost solely based on that and that alone. Interest in the single, in his touring, in his plans to diversify his sound, and the like seems like a complete outgrowth of what he did on Idol. He's not, at least to me, someone like a Kelly Clarkson or Simon Cowell with a sense of fundamental notoriety distinct from the show.
- - This is perhaps the crux of the issue. Should we discount certain coverage from denoting individual notability on Brackensick, just because we feel that this coverage is directly tied to Brackensick's involvement with a single event? Some editors seem to think so. Personally though, I don't feel that we should hold reality show contestants to a higher standard of notability than any other kind of musical artist. If a new artist, without any affiliations to a televised reality series, showed up on the scene today, with a non-charting single, yet received significant coverage in the above-mentioned sources, then that artist would almost definitely be considered notable enough for his or her own Wikipedia page. Shouldn't the fact that Brackensick was heavily featured, over the course of several months, on one of the most watched television shows in America only make him more notable than such an artist? --Jpcase (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My two cents: if he passes WP:NMUSIC because of his single, he is notable. Otherwise, I lean towards the fact that any coverage of his single is related to him being on that reality show, which still falls under WP:ONEVENT. Do note that coverage of one event can be spread over years and it does not make it less one-eventish. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus: True, multi-year news coverage could potentially still be seen as pertaining to a single event. But keep in mind that individuals only notable for a single event are allowed to have standalone articles, as directly stated in WP:ONEEVENT: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Here, we're starting to get into subjective territory. How is a "significant" event defined? How is a "large role" within that event defined? Different people may hold different standards. Personally, I feel that a nationally broadcast, 14-season television series, that topped viewership ratings for several years, and was called by the head of a rival network, "the most impactful show in the history of television", [8] should be considered a "significant event". And I feel that being heavily featured over the course of multiple months on that show should qualify as "playing a significant role", regardless of where Brackensick actually placed in the competition. Others may differ in these interpretations though; again, it's somewhat subjective. I feel that the most objective way of defining these terms is to simply look at sourcing. A significant event should be defined, I feel, as one that has received considerable news coverage from many reliable, third-party sources - by this criteria, American Idol unambiguously qualifies. It would follow that a significant role within an event should, I feel, be defined as one that has been the primary focus of several, individual articles pertaining to that event - likewise, Brackensick would unambiguously qualify, as he has been the primary focus of considerable news coverage both during, and several years after, his involvement with American Idol. Does this seem like a reasonable, objective standard by which to define these criteria laid out in WP:ONEEVENT? --Jpcase (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: By that standard, Brackensick would seem to qualify. In 2012, he was a part of the American Idol tour, which not only spanned across the United States, but also held a show in the Philippines. Here are a handful of sources - Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, SanJose.com, The Philippine Daily Inquirer. Brackensick also continues to perform professionally. According to this 2015 article by the Honolulu Pulse (The Honolulu Pulse is a division of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser), Brackensick has not only held occasional performances in Hawaii, where he's currently attending community college, but has also traveled to the US East Coast for several shows, and has even toured (probably on a small scale) in New Zealand and Australia. --Jpcase (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't changed my position. Regarding the new sources: Yahoo is brief blurb, The SF article is a PR piece, the York pieces are not an RS (it appears to be a forum, not a news site), the Milwaukee piece is an article about someone else in which he gets mentioned. On the whole, not enough to meet the significant coverage requirement, and he did not headline a national tour. Onel5969 TT me 17:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Onel5969: It's certainly fair to analyze the quality of each of these sources. But the York Dispatch articles don't come from a "forum"; they're essentially editorial pieces and should absolutely qualify as RS. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article is about the founder of Brackensick's music label, a man named Kevin Sucher, but talks about Sucher primarily within the context of his work with Brackensick. In fact, the Milwaukee article barely even mentions Brackensick's involvement with Idol, despite mentioning and quoting Brackensick several times - which should, I feel, display that Brackensick has attained at least some amount of notability separate from his appearance on that show. Also - what about the MidWeek article, and the one from Campbelltown MacArthur Advertiser? Or the Honolulu Pulse article that I linked to in my response to Bearian above? --Jpcase (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When did we reach the point that AFD-spurred redirects must go to DRV even if not substantially identical to the original article? If the original article had been flat-out deleted, the added material here would be significant enough to prevent speedy deletion. Why is a less stringent outcome more rigorously enforced? What is the policy basis for this anomalous practice? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeAndre Brackensick was clear. The consensus was clearly for "delete or redirect". It was a Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection, and so may be challenged here at DRV, but here at DRV there is no case to argue to overturn the AfD. The nomination here does not seem to challenge the AfD process or close, but is rearguing the AfD. DRV is not AFD2. You might try negotiating with the AfD closer for a re-open to make new points, or try userfying to improve the article with better sources that demonstrate wider notability, but you need sources to back up the statements made in the nomination here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: You're right - I'm not looking to challenge how the AfD played out, other than to note that key information went unnoticed and deserves to be part of the discussion. I agree that the consensus was clearly in favor of redirecting and that the AfD was properly closed as such. But I do feel that the sources I've linked to above make a case for restoring the article. If this isn't the proper forum for having that discussion, then I'm entirely willing to move it somewhere else. Initially, I tried restoring the article on my own, with better sourcing and a note on the talk page. I wasn't entirely sure that doing so was the appropriate course of action, but WP:Redirects for Discussion gave me the impression that I could just Be Bold and give it a shot. I knew that if anyone opposed the decision, they would always be free to revert me - which is exactly what happened. You can still see the better sourced version that I created a couple days ago in the article's history here [9]) though. Admittedly, I didn't put a lot of work into it - all I did was improve sourcing for statements that had already been included in the article (and slightly rephrase a sentence or two). A lot more could have been done, but I felt that what I did was at least sufficient for displaying notability. Clearly, some of the AfD's initial participants disagree. I've spoken with the AfD's closing administrator, Samwalton9, on his talk page. He knows that I've opened a discussion here at Deletion Review, although he hasn't offered an opinion on whether the sources I've offered up establish notability. If Samwalton9, or you, or anyone else feels that it would be better to continue this discussion somewhere else, or to reopen the AfD, or to simply start a new AfD, then I'd be open to any of those possibilities. --Jpcase (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've found even more sources:
- Here's another 2015 article from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser (accessed through HighBeam). Like the other article from this newspaper (that I linked to in my response to Bearian above), it's about a performance that Brackensick held with an artist named Raiatea Helm, who doesn't seem to have her own Wikipedia article, but probably should, considering that she has apparently been nominated for multiple Grammys - see Grammy Award for Best Hawaiian Music Album - and is the niece of George Helm. The article also briefly indicates that another Grammy-nominated artist, named Makana, was a part of this performance.
- Here's another article from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. This one is about a 2013 music festival in which Brackensick was a featured performer. Although not the primary focus of the article, Brackensick does receive a brief critical review. And while the article does mention American Idol, it directly states that Brackensick's involvement with the festival likely stemmed instead from connections made through his professional music career.
- And here's an article from Metroactive that likewise, isn't about Brackensick, but mentions him within a context that's separate from his American Idol involvement. The article's focus is another small-time (but professional) artist named Molia, who (I didn't know this until just now) recorded two singles with Brackensick in 2013.
So to recap - in addition to the dozens-upon-dozens of reliable sources providing significant coverage about Brackensick within the context of his initial American Idol appearance and his involvement with the international American Idol tour, we have sources discussing how Brackensick signed (at least temporarily) to a professional music label and released a single through that label, continues to perform professionally - not only in Hawaii, where he's currently attending community college, but also throughout the continental US, New Zealand, and Australia - has been featured in at least one significant music festival, has performed alongside two Grammy-nominated artists in at least one of his concerts, and has collaborated with another somewhat notable artist on multiple singles. All of these articles mention Brackensick's involvement with American Idol, which is to be expected, as that's undeniably a significant part of his bio. And some of the articles are clearly interested in Brackensick, primarily due to his reality show fame. But several other articles are clearly discussing Brackensick within a context that is primarily separate from Idol. As stated in my response to SmokeyJoe above, I'm happy to carry on this conversation somewhere else, if it's determined that Deletion Review isn't the proper place for it. But I would be curious to hear what the editors who had been involved with the AfD think about these newly discovered sources. --Jpcase (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Add this 2015 news feature from New Zealand's primary state broadcasting network, TVNZ1, onto the heap. Admittedly, it's not a perfect source - the coverage is split pretty evenly between Brackensick's Idol fame and a sold-out concert of his in Auckland, New Zealand - the latter of which, could perhaps be interpreted as PR-ish. Still we shouldn't discount the source entirely. It shows that Brackensick has sold out a concert in the largest city of a foreign country three years after his run on Idol and received coverage from one of that country's major news networks for doing so. Regardless of whether this is deemed somewhat PR-related (not that it's an official press release or anything - an independent news network was still responsible for the content), that shows some pretty long-lasting and far reaching-notability - right? --Jpcase (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Close, with reference to WP:BOLD and talk page discussion The OP is requesting permission to edit the encyclopedia. One of our WP:5P fundamental principles is that editors have the right to edit the encyclopedia.
A non-deletion notability dispute is a content dispute. WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT specifies, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I thing we've discussed this before? The AfD amounts to pseudo-deletion, as described at Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection. With no content merged, and the AfD strongly implying that no content is to be merged, an isolated editor is in a very poor position to revert the redirect, or to start merging content from behind the redirect. Two or more editors may well demonstrate a consensus to recover material for merging through discussion on the redirect target's talk page, but should they wish to allege procedural problems with the AfD discussion or close, neither the redirect nor target talk pages are appropriate. Short of a bold revert of the redirect with sufficient new material to overcome the deletion reasons (eg sourced appreciable achievement beyond Idol), the only recourse the editor has is DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: @Unscintillating: Again - I'm not necessarily alleging "procedural problems with the AfD". Nor am I looking to merge anything. But I do feel that the many sources I've linked to above display "appreciable achievement beyond Idol". So do either of you have recommendations on how to best procede? Would it be best for me to discuss the matter further with the closing administrator? --Jpcase (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedurally, this is a content question, so the advice to come here does not follow what I quoted from WP:Deletion policy. The reasons for doing so IMO have to do with a long time power struggle in which editors who like deletion discussions want to bring content disputes to where articles can be deleted. Sometimes AfD closers will decide to take on a content issue, and other times they will refuse, but you can ask. If the admin declines to become involved, the AfD is out of scope and not binding. Given that your un-redirect was reverted, even though the argument was fallacious, you still have to deal with it, as you have been doing. There is other text at WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT which suggests Template:RfC to bring additional editors to the talk page. Having said that, I'm also going to add a HOWEVER... I also skimmed some of your issue, and I typically avoid popular music content articles. The sfgate article is marked "blog", so might not have any value as a reliable source. The article is filled with fawning, which violates NPOV. This could be easily enough corrected with editing, but as it stands will be irritating to reviewers. Besides the TV show, the only thing I see that people in 100 years are going to want to know about this topic is the record, and all of this content is appropriate to slightly expand and update the existing mini-bio. The topic is still in college, so things might change. Hope that helps, Unscintillating (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it is awkward for you to come here and to ask about source quality and whether they overcome the deletion reason. Did you ask the closer, or ping the participants? Can I suggest you try to use the AfD talk page, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/DeAndre Brackensick for that discussion. I think the answer is no, but the AfD participants should be invited first. And it is not the proper use of DRV to deny that your sources are good enough, because such a statement from DRV might be misinterpreted as a binding decision from a higher court. DRV is not AFD2, and you are asking AfD questions. That said, no, I don't think your new sources suffice. I suggest that you wait a year, then consider writing a userspace draft, then asking the closer and participants, and people at Talk:American Idol (season 11) for their opinion. In the meantime, my usual suggestion is for you to try to add sourced content to American_Idol_(season_11)#Finalists, extending the paragraph beginning "DeAndre Brackensick (born October 21, 1994) is from ...". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Unscintillating: @SmokeyJoe: Thank you both for responding. First of all, let me just note that the AfD participants have already been invited to take part in this discussion - I pinged them at the top of this page. In fact, aside from the two of you and myself, everyone who has so far responded in this thread was also involved with the original AfD. It sounds like neither of you consider DRV to be the proper location for figuring any of this out, which has always been my own opinion as well. I'll probably contact the closing administrator one more time for his thoughts, and then perhaps I'll open an RFC, if that would be a more appropriate avenue.
- As far as sourcing goes (and I understand that this might not be the best place to discuss this - if you (SmokeyJoe) would rather respond on my talk page or not respond at all, then that's fine) - could I ask specifically why you feel that the above sources are insufficient for displaying Brackensick's individual notability? onel5969 has raised valid concerns with a few of the sources, but has decided not to comment on most of them. I then offered my own take in response and would certainly like to know if I erred in any of my assessments. Some of the sources, I'll readily concede, are not ideal. The Yahoo article [10], as onel5969 pointed out, is a blurb, while the SFGate article [11] does indeed seem to border on being something of a PR-piece. Those are only two of the twelve sources that I've linked to though.
- The York Dispatch articles [12] [13] were written by a professional blogger on staff with the newspaper, so onel5969 was mistaken in saying that they come from a forum. Three of the articles that I've found are primarily focused on topics other than Brackensick, [14] [15] [16] but they all display notability that Brackensick has attained separate from Idol. And the TVNZ1 [17] news piece is perhaps somewhat PR-ish, but was nonetheless produced by the primary state broadcasting network of New Zealand and shows that Brackensick has not only managed to maintain his notability for three years following Idol, but that his notability extends internationally. That still leaves this article from MidWeek [18], this article from the Campbelltown MacArthur Advertiser [19], and these articles from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. [20] [21] If you have issues with any of them, then I genuinely welcome your critiques. --Jpcase (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be happiest to see a list of sources and respond in detail at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/DeAndre Brackensick. Here is not a good place. The decision to delete based on the discussion as it was was fine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
