Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Braganza

:{{la|Stephanie Braganza}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephanie_Braganza Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Stephanie Braganza}})

WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. The strongest claim here is that she won a purely local music award that isn't "major" enough to constitute a pass of NMUSIC #8 -- and the referencing is parked almost entirely on primary sources, routine concert listings, and community weekly newspapers. And of the two sources here which are theoretically legitimate ones, CBC Music (#11) is to her own PR profile on CBC Music's "any artist can add some of their own music along with their own promotional EPK" section, not to any editorial content written by CBC Music's staff, and the Kingston Whig-Standard is just a straight reprint of a press release. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a musician is entitled to an article just because it's possible to verify that she exists; certain specific markers of achievement that satisfy NMUSIC have to be attained, and certain specific standards of reliable sourcing have to carry them, before a Wikipedia article becomes earned. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Weak delete, on the basis she is clearly more than a music wannabe singing in her bedroom and she clearly has a local profile, but there's no one thing in the article that convinces me she meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. I can't find any online reviews of her music either. Though she sang in front of a former US president, we don't know in what capacity.Sionk (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• No delete, I have found strong notability of the musician. She recently participated in a Guinness World Record of longest concert consist of 18 day, 24 hour a day. Added this in article with citation. Lubna.Iram (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC) –strike thru comment of blocked sock.--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

::Being one participant in a group effort to set a Guinness record is not, in and of itself, a notability claim — because she herself is not personally the named holder of the record, and the three "sources" you cited for it are two primary sources and a blog, not reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability as elegantly set out in the nomination.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

*Keep Being a big fan of music, I see she has a good notability in music world. 103.255.4.2 (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

:: Mostly though, you're a sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IMZahidIqbal, as was {{user|Lubna.Iram }} who was recently working on this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep While exploring her name through Google News, I found she got featured in Cashbox (magazine) for her work for animal protection. For her musical performance, she got coverage in The Mississauga News and Kingston Herald.--H.Saad (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC) strike confirmed sock !vote--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

::The Mississauga News and the Kingston Herald are both community weekly newspapers. Kingston's only GNG-eligible publication is the Kingston Whig-Standard, not the Herald, and Mississauga has no GNG-conferring media of its own separate from its status as secondary part of the Toronto media market. So they would be acceptable for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG had already been satisfied by stronger sources, but they do not count for anything toward the question of whether GNG has been passed in the first place — and she wasn't "featured" in Cashbox, but merely namechecked in coverage of a music festival that she happened to play at, so that source doesn't assist passage of GNG either because it isn't about her. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

:::I'm not aware of any blanket prohibitions of local weekly papers. I'm not familiar with the Kingston Herald, but the Mississauga News appears to be a serious enough publication - and I've never doubted it's veracity. Is the Herald a weekly? Looks more like a digital publication to me ... Nfitz (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

::::Local weekly papers can be used in the manner I specified in the above comment. But they are not widely distributed, and not generally archived in any place that would be accessible to us for reverification if the weblink ever dies, so they cannot be used to build the initial case for passage of WP:GNG. They can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after stronger sources have already carried the GNG, but a person does not pass GNG if community weeklies are the best you can do for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::I'm not aware of any requirement that references to establish GNG be available on-line - can you point to this policy? It's not relevant to my point, but why wouldn't the Mississauga News be archived and available in ProQuest's "Canadian Newsstand Torstar" along with all the other Torstar weeklies? I haven't checked for it before ... yes, it's there - February 2, 2003 to current. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

::::::Where did I say that the references to establish GNG had to be online? I said they had to be accessible from somewhere, not that said somewhere had to be open web. You need to try looking at my own sourcing work sometime if you think I think the latter, because I probably spend more time in ProQuest's Canadian Major Dailies than I do in my bed. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

:::::::I'm confused what issue you are raising then - a publication like the Mississauga News, will always be available at the Mississauga Library. Back to 1965 is available on microfilm. Probably other places too. Nfitz (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

::::::::The issue I'm raising is that community weekly newspapers do not count toward the initial meeting of WP:GNG, but may be used only as supplementary sourcing for stray facts after the issue of passing GNG has already been settled by stronger classes of sourcing, such as daily newspapers of the major market variety. The fact that the Mississauga Public Library has copies of the publication in its own microfilm room does not, in and of itself, make the Mississauga News a special case that counts for more than other community weekly newspapers do — because (a) the Mississauga Public Library's microfilm room is only accessible to residents of Mississauga, and is not widely available to a broad range of Wikipedia users beyond Mississauga, and (b) every local library in existence almost certainly maintains a microfilm archive of its local community weekly newspaper, so that fact hardly marks the Mississauga News as somehow more special than other community weeklies that have already been deprecated as not able to carry GNG.

::::::::If the person who needs to spotcheck a deadlinked reference to the Mississauga News lives in Florida or Norway or Malaysia or even in Toronto, for example, then there's simply no possible way for them to make that happen. Which is why newspaper has to be a major market daily to actually count toward the initial question of whether the topic clears GNG in the first place — the class of newspapers where the archives are broadly accessible to a lot of users beyond one city alone, because the microfilms are carried by a lot of library systems, and/or an internationally accessible subscription database exists that users in Florida and Norway and Malaysia can access just as easily as users in Mississauga can.

::::::::And as I've said before, if community weekly newspapers could carry GNG all by themselves, we would have to start keeping articles about presidents of church bake sale committees and elementary school parent teacher associations, and the woman a mile down the road from my parents who woke up one morning to find a pig in her yard. Which is another reason why weeklies can be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been covered off, but not toward the initial question of whether GNG has been met: community weeklies regularly devote coverage to topics of zero relevance to an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::Can you point me to this policy? Though I'm not sure that Mississauga News is a great example for that policy - it is available archived on-line (though most Ontario community newspapers are, some in multiple places). Also, I'm not sure why you keep referring to it as a weekly. Nfitz (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::Er, because it's not a daily? Bearcat (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::::It's no more a weekly, than it is a daily. It's been at least twice-weekly as long as I remember. I thought they were tri-weekly at some point recently. But that's not my question. Where is this policy you cite? I'm not seeing this in WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I have seen articles sourced, in part, to old news clippings, and archived material of sundry sorts by the expedient of taking a photo of the page, with a closeup enabling users to read the text, and posting it to an article's talk page. Nefitz, Certainy local bi-weeklies can be used as sources. But it is highly irregular for an topic to lack coverage in more widely recognized publications (which may include specialist publications, not just major newsmedia.) One problem is that local papers are very given to featuring topics of local notibility only, Another is that they often lack even the capacity to verify facts found in even the smaller regional dailies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{ping|Bearcat}} I have been operating for some while on the understanding that local newspapers (and the definition of local with smallish papers is admittedly fuzzy at the edge,) nevertheless, I have assumed that local sources count a little bit towards notability, Just a little bit. I don't think I have actually ivoted Keep where local soruces are all we have. Nevertheless, Nfitz asks a valid question: Where is it written?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::::Again, nowhere but nowhere did I ever say that local non-daily community papers cannot be used for sourcing Wikipedia content at all — they can absolutely be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by stronger sources. But a person is not notable enough for an article if purely local community newspapers are the best sourcing that can be shown at all, and that's especially true if the person doesn't pass any of our SNGs and instead you're going for "notable because media coverage of her exists". If media coverage of her existed in The Globe and Mail, then "media coverage exists" might compel — but non-daily community papers don't build a notability case, because they routinely grant coverage to, as I mentioned above, presidents of parent teacher associations and church bake sale committees and other classes of people that are of no interest to us. And incidentally, twice-weekly papers still fall under the rubric of "weekly" papers for the purpose of determining notability, because they're still not "daily" papers. And something doesn't have to be formally spelled out in policy to be true nonetheless — you need to be familiar with the corpus of established consensus around how GNG is determined to actually apply in cases of debate, and one of the pillars of that consensus is that if community non-daily newspapers represent the best one can do for media coverage about a subject, then that isn't enough to pass GNG in and of itself. A singer gets into Wikipedia when she's getting coverage in the Toronto Star, and The Globe and Mail and The New York Times and Rolling Stone, not when she's getting coverage in a suburban pennysaver. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::User:Bearcat. Just as you say, the sources are not here to support this article, and I cannot imagine a situation where local sourcing would suffice. I just wanted to make sure that I had not missed a black letter rule stipulating that local sourcing can never suffice. I am sorry that I put you to the toruble of a long explanation. I must have been unclear above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

::::::::::New or newish editors reading this should understand that the rules of Wikipedia like real world legal systems, operate to some extend under a system of common, that is, customary law and interpretation. Even large numbers of articles in local publications do nt suffice, and that would also apply, for example, to articles in local sections of, say, the Washingotn Post, which publishes local news about Virginia, Maryland and the District. A profile or feature story in one of these local editions wouln no more have the weight to make a topic pass WP:GNG than an article in any other local newspaper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

::Thank you for the confirmation of lack of this guideline, BC. Of course, in this particular area, with many other significant media outlets, the complete lack of coverage in any of them might well indicate a lack of notability. But each case should be judged on their own merits. If someone had significant coverage in only the low-circulation weeklies News/North and Nunatsiaq News, I think the weight would be very different. Nfitz (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• delete, possibly it's just WP:TOOSOON. Local papers do count towards notability, they just don't count very much. I'm just not seeing enough coverage in major media, or enough significant achievement (prizes) to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• keep - she would be more familiar to many more than the hundreds, if not thousands, of contemporary academics with pages in wikipedia. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

:*WP:OTHERSTUFF. Goldsztajn, Nfitz, Adequate WP:RD coverage of her would persuade me to change my opinion , but my searches haven't turned any up. Feel free to flag me if you find major awards, articles in major media, a role in a notable film, or similar that is not already on the page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.