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. Although Cullen328 and Valjean make very persuasive arguments for why this singer is likely in fact notable according to our guidelines, I must also take into account another argument that underlies many "delete" opinions: that cleaning up an article about a borderline notable singer and defending it against promotional sockpuppets and other shenanigans is not a wise use of our volunteers' time. As such, there being good arguments on both sides of the debate, I have to go with the numbers and find a rough consensus in favor of deletion (and salting). Sandstein 07:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Evans (singer)[edit]

Brian Evans (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Can we assess notability on this user. User:Liz believes he fails GNG. I think that he may pass it marginally. It is important to point out that I changed this from a PROD, which anyone can remove, to an AFD due to almost a decade of self promotion sockpuppeting found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Croonerman. This way a true community discussion can be held with minimal disruption by socking. The current active sock/meat puppet is User:Joan4505A and the investigation has been updated as such. Unbroken Chain (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Unbroken Chain (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Makes no sense why this page would be considered for deletion. There is literally decades of work with well established sources that justify the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.206.144.171 (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: He doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NPOL, and I don't see enough to meet GNG. Most of the press coverage is churnalism. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I realize that being a sockpuppet magnet isn't a valid reason for deletion so I will just say that being marginally notable in a number of different pursuits (SNG) doesn't add up to be GNG. But, it does look like this article has been a promotional vehicle for almost a decade now. And now the subject is complaining about me on my talk page, I guess that was to be expected when you look at the history of this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet WP:SINGER. ––FormalDude talk 05:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe that there is some marginal notability because of his song "At Fenway" inclusion into the Baseball Hall of Fame. I am quite concerned about the self promotion that is being done here over the course of time and the inability to stop the socking short of fully locking the page down. It may have to be in the vein of WP:IAR to delete and salt to prevent the waste of time that this one individual has done. That's a tenuous argument so my sympathies to the closer having to navigate that. If deletion and salting is the way to go a variation of pages will need to be salted. Happy to provide the names of those pages if needed. Unbroken Chain (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think one element that should be noted here is that Unbroken Chain is the page creator and 9 years ago he, and Hirolovesswords went to great lengths to write an article that met Wikipedia's standards. Then sockpuppetry and threats of lawsuits happened over the years. Editors should judge this article based on its current condition but Unbroken Chain's critique of the tortured history of this article is worth noting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:SINGER and WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 06:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That comment above is 1,233 words with no paragraph breaks. See also a similar 1,230-word paragraph at Liz's talk page. That sure is a lot of verbal vomit from someone who claims to have no conflict of interest, and I've never seen so much butthurt agony from one person when a totally different person (ahem) is criticized. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like his evasion and disrespect for our policies but this is more then likely a sensitive issue for him. We should respect that as much as possible. I really didn't intend for this to be a bashing section on this man's character. Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respect for "this man's character" would be easier if he admitted his own words rather than pretending to be someone named Joan. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Appears to fail WP:NPOL. This is slightly off-topic, but I would like to note that the comment added by the SPA above is a staggering 1230 words long. I've written essays shorter than that. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NPOL. Probably an edge case for MUSICBIO and GNG and in other circumstances I might be persuaded to fall on the other side. It is really hard to separate the notability judgement from the wider issues of COI and self promotion. In truth, if anything, this article should just be a stub. It seems detrimental to the project as a whole to keep this page and waste editors time monitoring and editing an article of such marginal interest and notability. Therefore I believe on balance it should be deleted. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing to establish notability. Snow close please to enforce WP:DENY. This topic has become a magnet for an obsessive sock puppeteer. The outcome is no longer in doubt. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly passes GNG. We need a "purpose" policy that can be cited when it's violated because bogus AfDs like this that undermine GNG should not exist. The only question to ask at an AfD is whether the article passes GNG. AfDs like this are at odds with our purpose here, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge. All other problems with the article are covered by WP:PRESERVE, which dictates that fixing and improving, not deleting, is our goal here.

If a policy allowing deletion because of PROVEN sockpuppetry, OWNERSHIP, promotion, whitewashing, COI editing, and other claimed problems and abuses (that were proven) were created, then we could consider retribution/punishment as a reason for deletion, but such a policy does not exist. GNG is the only thing to consider here, and, even after so many RS have been deleted, there is still enough RS coverage and mention to pass GNG. That doesn't mean that a number of editors and IPS shouldn't be blocked for abuse. That's still a problem. -- Valjean (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valjean, That's a fair outlook on GNG. I don't think of this as retribution or a punishment, simply a stopping of the drain on editors. I do think that IAR does exist for at least the conversation we are having here though despite your concerns in that regard. It's better then say an admin board where the drama is amped to 300 percent of where we are now. If the article is kept then so be it, I noted in my own opinion it was a tenuous argument. I'm curious as to what Reliable sources were removed? Today I removed PRnewswire (which isn't RS I thought?) but I'm curious if I made some other mistake you might be able to show me so I can rectify that, if it was me that did it all. Unbroken Chain (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing by deleting PRNewswire, which is a terrible source. I had taken a quick sampling of edits going far back and saw that RS were deleted and restored, often with dubious arguments from both sides. Nothing about you particularly. It's just that there's been a battle going on that is really nasty, with violations on both sides. We allow far less notable people, cartoon insects and animals to pass GNG here, but this guy has made his little mark in the world with some popular songs appreciated by lovers of crooner style, such as Shatner.[1] Give him that much. "At Fenway" is now at nearly 12 million views, and Shatner played a role there too, as well as in other videos and concerts by Brian. Shatner's obviously notable for far more, but he's a figure in this guy's life and music videos, and that too lends some notability to Brian.

I agree that IAR may apply here, especially if Brian makes good on his legal threats, but we don't have a policy that justifies deletion on those grounds, and, without that policy, deletion based only on IAR would set a bad precedent. Instead, the legal tussles would be documented in this article. Assholes have articles here, sometimes just because they are notable for being assholes (and I'm NOT calling him one!). Just sayin'. GNG works that way. We should err on the side of inclusion because that's our goal here, to document the sum total of human knowledge as found in RS, and there are enough RS about this guy. -- Valjean (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, that was the vehicle to getting the stub published. I think it's a delightful song, I've commented as such on wiki even. As to civility I've missed the mark in that regard more then once and one that I've tried with some limited success to improve as I age. I joined this site a young man and now I'm not as young ;) Thanks for the reply and do believe you raise good points for the closer to consider. Unbroken Chain (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Croonerman/Archive, one wonders about the character of someone so intent on self-promotion. From his mother's description, this has been his life's goal since about two years old when he grabbed a microphone. Still, that is not grounds for deletion. Only GNG counts. -- Valjean (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the very least I can respect the persistence. I do have respect for having to promote oneself especially in that business, just not here. Unbroken Chain (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt Fails GNG - the subject of the article is making a living in the arts and entertainment field, but is not notable. The major contributors have COI. The subject of the article clearly is part of the editing process of this article. Vague legal threats and personal meanness by editors are contradictory to Wikipedia policies. I don't think this nomination is bogus. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt Fails GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:NPOL. The subject has worked with notable people, but is not himself notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. At best this is an attempt at notability by association. Given the editing history and presumed sockpuppetry therein, it's likely self-promotion. I disagree that WP:GNG is met, and despite the WP:REFBOMBing at the article, my opinion is that the subject fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NPOL. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Alas, I am compelled to admit that I am undecided on Mr. Evans's notability. He really does have an association with the Baseball Hall of Fame, he has gained some notice as a comedic opening act, he has commendations for sleep apnea awareness, and he was noticed as a failed politician. But this article is clearly a conflict of interest and shamelessly (even pathetically) self-promotional, no matter how many fake accounts are used. Mr. Evans has simply added Wikipedia to his desperate quest for publicity. He might just merit a VERY short article here. But axe the promotional text, and kick all associated sockpuppets out of here. He will appreciate the opportunity to milk his rejection from Wikipedia for more publicity. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have basically come to the same conclusion as you but the self promotion (both in sources and in the article) makes it really hard to distinguish the notable from the fluff. The Baseball Hall of Fame thing seems notable but in reality I have no idea what it means for someone to have a song they wrote added to the library of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. According to their website they have a pretty big archive including "hundreds of baseball songs" (and compost buckets). Really it probably means very little but has been touted as something by Evans himself. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject of this article does not meet any of our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article in its current form is very bad. The history of the article is awful. The conduct of the subject and his supporters is horrible. That conduct includes harassment of good faith Wikipedia editors and legal threats against editors, which are especially chilling since this person has a significant history of suing people on the thinnest of grounds. Many of the claims in the article and by those defending this article are spurious. It is a perfect example of how aggressive editing by accounts with glaring conflicts of interest and promotional intent results in really poor quality articles. But such articles should not be deleted if the topic is notable. Instead, the bad aspects should be removed by uninvolved neutral editors, transforming such articles into something neutral and acceptable. If this article is kept, I recommend that it should be under extended confirmed protection for years to come, so that experienced, uninvolved editors can prune away all the garbage, resulting in a dramatically shorter article that neutrally summarizes what the actually reliable and independent sources say about this entertainer. No puffery allowed.

Why do I think that he is notable then? Consider this 1999 article in the Las Vegas Sun, which simultaneously devotes significant coverage to Evans and also describes behavioral patterns that we can still observe in 23 years later. Right before the turn of the century and two years before Wikipedia was created, we read that Evans was seemingly obsessed with the trivial factoid that he was the only singer to record a CD at a certain Vegas casino that has since been torn down. Evans and his management team are conveying that point with all the subtlety of a box of bricks, peppering media outlets from Rolling Stone magazine to Reuters to TV Guide with the fact that Evans is the ONLY act to issue a live recording from the D.I.. On the other hand, this is a 20 paragraph review of his 19 song CD that includes grudging praise such as By comparison, "I Left My Heart In San Francisco" is refreshingly more subdued than Bennett's grandiose rendition, showing that in some cases, Evans knows his limits. Same with "New York, New York" and an Evans favorite, "Blue Velvet," which fit his vocal range perfectly. On the third hand, this 1998 piece in the same newspaper seems to be a credulous recapitulation of his press releases, with no evidence of independent reporting. There was a lot of that in Las Vegas in the 1990s and a whole lot more of it everywhere today.

This Boston Globe article about his Fenway Park song is also a point in favor of his notability, while also providing indications of his relentless self-promotonalism. The repeated claims that somehow he is in the Baseball Hall of Fame just because his song was accepted into their library is both ludicrous and bizarre. As if someone quoted at length in the Congressional Record is somehow in Congress. That is the kind of never-ending promotionalism that we are up against. But it is a fact that this song received significant coverage in reliable sources, and that is an argument in favor of keeping this article.

Let's debunk some of the other spurious claims in the article. He is not notable as an actor, because all of his roles were bit parts and no reliable independent sources devote significant coverage to his acting, although a few parrot his filmography as presented in his press releases. He is not notable as a politician because he has never held political office and has been trounced in every election in which he has been a candidate. He is not notable as an author because his books have only received coverage obviously generated by press releases, or on the "Kirkus Indie" site, which is "pay for play" and the exact opposite of a reliable source for books. He is not a big band singer since his bands usually consist of four instruments at most. He is not notable because he has been an opening act for clearly notable entertainers. Notability is not inherited by opening for stars or getting photographed with stars. He is not notable because of alleged Asian big hits referenced to reprints of his press releases, or alleged Canadian big hits cited to Las Vegas Sun recapitulations of his press releases. The Asian and Canadian sources for these extraordinary claims are nowhere to be found. He is not notable as a criminal, because his Casey Kasem scam was mundane and long ago. He is not even notable as someone who files a lot of lawsuits, although that is a verifiable fact. His lawsuits are of little consequence. He is borderline notable as a singer, or nightclub crooner, to use the slang term that he has embraced. He is, as the newspaper that has given him the most coverage describes him, a battle-scarred, beaten-down lounge lizard.

So, let's keep the article, identify the actual independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this entertainer, neutrally summarize what those sources say, and vigorously remove everything else. If "Crooner" Evans or his meatpuppets pop up to promote him again, they should be blocked on sight. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very Persuasive. Thank you for the comments in favor of keeping the article. I hope that if the article is kept (I personally think Valjean and yourself will be instrumental in that with excellent keep rationales) then it can be put into a readable shape. It really is like cutting our nose to spite our face. My plans after this AFD is to remove this article from my watchlist and disengage again as I did since 2020 as hopefully the community and various admin will have this page watchlisted. That will be a win-win for everyone. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate the care and thoroughness of your evaluation of this article, Cullen328, but your argument convinces me more about his overwhelming lack of notability in music, politics, acting, crime, lawsuits, closeness to more important celebrities, if you took out his lack of importance and the irrelevant, promotional parts of this biography, you've removed basically 95% of the content of the article. Is the slim bit of notability that you state is present really enough for more than a stub article? And, if so, who wants to take on the work of cutting this article down to that kernel of what DOES make him notable? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 15 February 2022 (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.