Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Singer

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. After disregarding the sockpuppets' opinions, there was no one arguing to keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Colin 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)

Vanity page of non-notable immigration lawyer. Main claim to notability is that he managed Rick Genest, and published photos of him, but notability is not inherited, and I can only find passing mentions of Singer in the references about Genest and online. The media "contributions" the article credits him with seem to also be only passing mentions, for example, a site search for him in the Financial Post yields only [1], same for CNN [2], same for CBC [3] [4]. He's quoted a few times in this Daily Beast article about immigration [5]. Orphan article, apart from a photo credit link in Rick Genest. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:CREATIVE. Storchy (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Photography, Law, and Canada. Storchy (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*I disagree. Many less known lawyers are on Wikipedia without any issues. This article is live since 2018. I suggest we try to improve this article first with more citations. I saw today someone has already corrected a failed verification. I think Colin Singer notability is more than just being the manager of zombie boy (published author, lawyer, photographer). All social profiles of him has many followers meaning he is a public figure. Deleting this article meaning deleting 10s or 100s of other lawyers here. Legalife103 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — Legalife103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Please see WP:WHATABOUT, and WP:ALLORNOTHING. You're welcome to add WP:Reliable sources about him, if you can find WP:Significant coverage of the man. I had a damn good try. Storchy (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Storchy! I hope you are well. I asked an editor from zombie boy's page to add more references to establish the connection between the two instead of being "passing mentions". I saw he also added singer as an executive producer (IMDB). I'm trying to find more publications of him online and I'll edit them in when I have the chance. I saw you added "self published sources". Am not familiar with this one. Care to elaborate? Does this mean every author who has references for his work has this tag? Thanks for helping improving this piece! Legalife103 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. WP:Blogs, press releases, and other self-published works are not regarded as WP:Reliable sources on Wikipedia.

On a related matter, the account that added blog posts for references is User:Zom.b.fan. There are no posts to that account's user talk page. How did you ask them? Storchy (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So an interview with a subject saying he was managed by someone is not a valid reference for the management of the subject? And I believe he/she added another reference from a business database source showing Singer as a part of a management company of Zombie Boy. Is that count as a blog post as well? And for your question - this editor is known from Zombie Boy fan group outside of Wikipedia. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of familiarity with Zombie Boy or I would have done these edits myself. I think we now covered Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, so according to Wikipedia's guidelines there is no need to nominate this article for deletion no more. Unless you have another specific reason for deletion? Legalife103 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

@Storchy? Please advise as an experienced editor what else can we do to improve the article? I have found more Financial Post publications. I will edit them in tomorrow. What else? Legalife103 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to show substantial coverage from reliable sources, showing his notability according to the General notability guidelines, and the guidelines for Notability of people. Storchy (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As I have COI should I add these by myself directly or suggest to be added? Legalife103 (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please suggest the additions at Talk:Colin Singer, and thanks for disclosing the conflict of interest. Storchy (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after a very long research I have found all Financial Post articles, Lawyers Daily, Mondaq and the CBC interview and BNN Blomberg interview. I added all publications and reliable sources on the talk page as you have suggested. I think that shows Singer's expertise in his field. Legalife103 (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An individual's notability should be established independently of other individuals (see also WP:NOTINHERITED). All text in the sections 'Entertainment' and 'Photography' supports the claim that Zombie Boy is notable, but not Colin Singer. That is, Singer isn't notable just because he manages or photographs a notable individual. Moreover, registry information (eg - the Quebec lawyer registry) is not sufficient to establish notability (all lawyers in the province are required to have an entry). Other refs are either self-published (his books, and two of his websites), tangential mentions in articles about other subjects (eg - the first ref to BBC, which is about Zombie Boy's death), or sources that are not reliable (blogs, business listing aggregation websites, etc.). In order to establish notability, reliable sources in which Colin Singer is the principal subject of an article must be provided. Mindmatrix 13:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I hope you are well. As replied to Storchy, with his great direction and assistance, I have added multiple publications from reliable sources (articles, interviews for national networks etc.). I think this emphasis the subject's expertise in his field regardless of Zombie Boy. What do you think? Legalife103 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets the minimum threshold for notability IMO. Although a bit unorthodox, today's notability can also be measured outside of Wikipedia (at least in my opinion). Take a look here: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&q=colin%20singer. You can see the trend under the search "Colin Singer" for the past 30 days. Even if we zoom in on Legal/Law to avoid "Capturing" searches for other Colin Singers, we can still see a lot of searches. Add to that the followers number on social media (both for the subject himself and for his brand - CCIRC) and you'll have a better picture of his "digital notability". That being said, when looked at through the classic "Wikipedia" lens, I can still see him meeting the criteria. A lawyer - Who isn't one, right? A photographer - we all are, but some of his work was actually published on 3rd party platforms (exhibits, magazines). A film executive producer - that is new to me, but after looking at IMDB I think it adds more weight towards recognition. Manager of Zombie Boy - notability isn't inherited, true. But I think it wasn't just a matter of "managing an artist", but actively be a creative part of the brand (according to the references and media published). Immigration lawyer - as I said, everyone's a lawyer these days, but there are a lot of publications under his name on several major news outlets and legal directories (I think Mondaq is one of them. Am not familiar with Lawyer's Daily though). A quick search on Google reveals he is also an editor of a Google News featured website: cimmigrationnews.com. This shouldn't be on his wiki of course, as a deep dive shows this website is actually a part of immigration.ca's network, so no surprises there, but it still shows that we might need to consider adding the brand's (immigration.ca) notability weight to the discussion. I'm not saying a commercial law firm should have its own wikipedia entry, but the activity, mentions and publications it generates, should be added to the person behind it. In conclusion, I thought he was notable enough when I first wrote that entry, and I think he is notable enough today. Thanks for reading this ENTIRE thing! :) Globalbandit (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC) — Globalbandit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. I believe this article should be kept. It sheds some light about Singer's activities, and the person himself is notible anough for an article. The contentor (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:GNG. Utterly lacking in substantial independent sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as mentioned before, new sources were added with the help of the OP, publications showing expertise in this field and other new resources (film producer, entertainment manager, photographer) from independent resources (cbc, bnn, lawyers daily, FP etc). When someone is notable for his work or expertise and has sufficient publications, no "external" coverage of him is necessary (like artists, academic researchers etc). I think we have established Singer's expertise with the professional publications published on different independent platforms.Legalife103 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC) — Legalife103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Sourcing's a mess, COI/UPE's a mess, the tags on the page say it all, really. Sourcing to articles contributed by Singer ('Colin', in the article) to various publications don't count, neither do his own website or incidental mentions in coverage of the death of the singer he managed. Sources like this one are a real concern - is this directory entry meant to validate Singer's management of his singer? Even when you see a (rare) decent-looking source like CBC, it turns out he's just a talking head in a feature. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So far we've had a hit parade of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, including WP:WHATABOUT, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:BUTITEXISTS, WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:POPULARPAGE, WP:INHERITED, and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. All of these have been put forward as a reason to keep, by editors who've either made few edits, or haven't edited in over a year or more.

One editor has already admitted that they coordinated with another editor offline on the article, and it looks a lot like one editor or another has been WP:Canvassing offline for support on this discussion.

As noted at the top of this page, this is not a ballot. If you want the page to be kept, you need to start making the case for notability based on its guidelines for inclusion. Consensus here is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Please refer to WP:BIO and WP:GNG for what makes a person notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Storchy (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Legallife103's sock's comments have already been stricken; from the CU data, I am very confident that Legallife103 was themselves evading a block on a previous account, so I am also striking their comments above. Also note that the other 'keep' comes from The contentor, who I have just blocked for operating multiple accounts - there is more at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The contentor. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What a wonderful mess! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:28, 29 July 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.