Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Brodie (singer-songwriter)

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Brodie (singer-songwriter)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Autobiography of producer who so far lacks notability, one local source[1] reproduces aggrandizing claims like "working with Grammy winners" even though the artist in case, The Last Artful, Dodgr, hasn't won a Grammy yet as far as I can tell. Fram (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. Fram (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as TOOSOON - Young fellow sure seems like he's on a good track - he's been signed by a small label, has produced for some pretty successful artists, I think there's a good chance he'll be notable eventually. Not yet. BrigadierG (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - thanks! I've signed a 50/50 partnership with Sony Music Publishing UK which is the biggest music publisher in the entire world. I've produced for Grammy-winning, Billboard charting, Platinum selling artists. As far as notability goes - I don't know who decides or quantifies but I have tens of millions of streams on Spotify, many articles mentioning my name and more. Sambrodie (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I would suggest reading WP:YOURSELF, WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC and returning with a policy-based argument for inclusion. Having a Wikipedia article about you is not a reward for how successful you may or may not have been in your career, it is a measure of your value as an encyclopaedic entry. BrigadierG (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YOURSELF - "Independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability; it is natural for people to exaggerate in writing about themselves" : I wasn't aware how strongly Wikipedia discourages writing about yourself but regardless of that, everything I have provided in my references and citations are verifiably true. You can't fake credits on Spotify or fake eligibility for an Album Of The Year Award or fake an album that I've worked on going #1 on the Spotify Charts. I agree, a Wikipedia article about you is not a reward for how successful you may or may not have been in your career because success is subjective however I'm providing real statistics and references for every claim and nothing is being aggrandized. I've worked with Grammy-Winners, Billboard Charters and Platinum Selling Artists, that's just an objective fact whether that equals success to whoever reads this or not. I actually as I'm writing this just charted on Billboard myself believe it or not, as in today right now. It's still updating because Billboard updates every Tuesday but you can see on 03 Greedo's Billboard Page that my song "No Use" that I produced for him just went #1.

WP:GNG - "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected" : I was initially told that the reason for the deletion of my Wikipedia article was for a lack of notability, that only one local source covered my career and that it had aggrandizing claims like working with Grammy-winners. I want to clarify that A: I have worked with Grammy-winners, and the article didn't aggrandize anything. B: It doesn't matter if I have been covered by one source, or one hundred sources, It just depends on the quality and the depth of coverage in those sources. C: There are at least 8 independent sources that include my name and that's not including any Chart coverage. D: There is a lot of depth of coverage in my "local" source, and that local source actually covers news for the entirety of Scotland.

WP:GNG - "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. : I have never paid for a press release or for advertising, and the only autobiographies I have are on Spotify and now here. The sources I have included are independent, and the conclusions or coverage of my name within those sources are independent too. I was not involved in the creation of any article about me, and I have never paid for anything to be created for me. I have been asked questions however, and answered them honestly and everything I've said is verfifiable.

Here is my policy-based argument for inclusion: Everything included below qualifies me as a notable musician based on Wikipedia's guidelines for notability

WP:NMUSIC - "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" : I have been included in multiple sources that include my name (Sam Brodie or $am Brodie) that aren't self-published, completely independent of myself and written by others. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5 Source 6 Source 7 Source 8

WP:NMUSIC - "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." : I have over 150,000 monthly listeners on my Spotify page for my personal music as an artist. I have achieved that independently of a record label's support - but I don't want that to be confused with my publishing deal with Sony Music Publishing UK. Sony Music Publishing UK have nothing to do with my personal Spotify, and only help with the publishing of the music I produce for other artists. This makes me the biggest independent artist in Scotland (arguable I suppose, and hard to verify but that's to the best of my knowledge) and one of the biggest artists in Scotland. If that can't be proven, I'm definitely the biggest in Fife. Here is my Spotify for verification of my monthly listeners.

WP:NMUSIC - "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." : My Wikipedia page speaks for itself here, all the information is there. I have had #1 charting albums and #1 charting singles with a credit for writing or co-writing. Here are some sources to prove that: Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5

WP:NMUSIC - "The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart." : I think this helps my last point even more. I have had a #1 Album in Russia, #9 Album in Ukraine, #1 Single in Luxembourg (Daily and Weekly), #1 Single in USA (San Francisco).

WP:NMUSIC - "The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country." : I have left the link attached to "Certified Gold" so you can read about the different types of certifications. I worked on the album "12" by FACE which has been Certified Gold by IMPALA, the photo I have used for my Wikipedia page is a photo of me with the Gold plaque which you cannot get without the certification. I can show the actual certification too if needed, but I would argue this grants me notability on this point alone by the guidelines set out from Wikipedia. I also want to add here that you can find credits for any of the song's I've mentioned on Spotify by going onto the song and clicking "Show Credits" - here is the Song I'm mentioning that is apart of the album that was certified gold. IMPALA is on the list of Music recording certification.

WP:NMUSIC - "A good online source for recordings is the AllMusic search engine" - Here is my AllMusic Profile with some of my credits. I believe they only cover certain regions however so many of my credits are missing.

Thank you. Sambrodie (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort you put into reviewing policy. I will dig in more shortly, but I will say that one thing that makes your claims of notability especially hard to evaluate (and something I would strongly discourage) is a tendency to position yourself close to things that you've definitely not achieved - for example "working with grammy winners" not-so-subtly positions you as "grammy-adjacent" for want of a better term. A lot of your claimed accomplishments feel from an outside perspective like trying to ride on the tail of more successful artists to carve off a little piece of the associated fame that goes with winning a big award.

It's true that producers and session musicians get less coverage than the main artist on a track, but that's because it's also generally recognised that the contribution to the track's success is less.

Right now, here's where I stand on the new claims of notability:

1. The additional coverage linked is generally WP:ROUTINE (announcement) or not in-depth WP:SIGCOV (you're a passing mention in an article about the singer).

2. The claims about "working with" certain successful artists is generally not enough. The records themselves need to be independently notable for that to be relevant - producing for a grammy-winning track or album would get you much closer here but from what I understand that's not the case.

This is neglecting the fact that I think producers have much higher standards than artists in terms of achievement in songs they work on. Subject-specific notability guidelines are really just heuristics for WP:GNG and the coverage you get as a performing artist is (as I'm sure you're aware) significantly more than for producers.

I'm voting to draftify and not delete because it's clear you're on the right track, but I don't think you're over the line yet. BrigadierG (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. I want to stay away from subjectivity as much as possible here because it truly doesn't really matter.

On the point about Grammy Winners and working with them - I'm truly not trying to bite a piece of someone else's success or fame because I know in due time I'll get there too. I was simply just responding to the reason for deletion which was initially that I didn't work with Grammy Winners, but I have. I haven't won a Grammy yet, that is true. I was simply referencing the article which mentioned that I worked with Grammy Winners - I didn't write the article or ask for that to be mentioned in the article however it is an interesting fact about my story.

As a producer and songwriter there's not much more I can achieve, I have Billboard #1's now, Platinum selling records, some chart success. Yes, I could get more of them, and different types of them but generally the only thing left is a Grammy. I suppose my argument there would be: as a songwriter are you only notable when you cross the threshold of winning a Grammy?

Because unfortunately, and to your point, producers don't get the recognition. But have you ever heard an A cappella #1? an A capella Grammy?

I believe songwriters and producers are just as vital to the process of song making as the artist is, but obviously press will always favor the artist. Sambrodie (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this is probably unfortunately true, Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in terms of credit given to various parties. Olympic medallists, startup founders, and astronauts are recognised, while the coaches, early employees and engineers that were instrumental to that success are often not. Wikipedia isn't here to set norms about fairness, we're just here to report on the ones that exist. BrigadierG (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people need to push back on the norm and change it - protest it. Coaches should definitely be recognized if a boxer becomes the best in the world.

Josh Taylor is a good example - Terry McCormack his early coach is mentioned, but not a profile on Wikipedia himself.

However, I think generally music producers get more notability than coaches and deserve a Wikipedia page more because yes a coach helped a World Champion Boxer to the ring, they didn't win the Title.

If I win a Grammy, I get either a Grammy Award or certificate (and credit on the song) Sambrodie (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage about this person. This [2], which I'm not sure is a RS and it's not very helpful in establishing reliability. Otherwise, there's an article in the Sun, which isn't a RS, and that's it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source you link is for a different person. BrigadierG (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's an even better case for the deletion then, I don't find any coverage at all about this young person. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks for all this feedback - my name changed in 2023 hence the lack of new articles. I've updated that in my Wiki, and I would argue this gives more of a reason for my Wikipedia page to stand because there is confusion between me the music producer and "Sam Brodie" the big brother contestant and many people will associate me with him.

As far as not enough coverage goes - a lot of coverage for music producers specifically aren't entire articles dedicated to your career. It's very rare to have that unless you've won a Grammy or are at the very peak of your career. I do however have 5-10 articles including my name, and one semi-local article explaining my career. I do however believe I'm notable enough for a Wiki page giving that I am one of the biggest artists from Scotland with 150,000+ monthly listeners, worked with many major record labels, have had multiple #1 singles and albums (in the US and Europe) and much more detailed in my Wiki page. Sambrodie (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - The Last Artful, Dodgr has won a Grammy. Her real name is Alana Chenevert and she has songwriting credits on the song "Make It Better" by Anderson .Paak & Smokey Robinson which was apart of the album "Ventura" by Anderson .Paak which won Best R&B album at the 62nd Grammy Awards. The song I worked on with her was titled "Asi9ine" for her album released by Interscope titled "Hits Of Today". This is all public knowledge, accessible by Spotify credits or any other website that showcases crediting on songs.

The local article was not aggrandizing me in any way. Everything in that article is completely accurate and wasn't written by me. Sambrodie (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, just like you don't win an Oscar for being part of an Academy Award winning movie, you don't win a Grammy for being part of a Grammy-winning record. And also no, just because you changed your name to be the same as that of a BB contestant is not more reason to keep your article, Wikipedia is not a vehicle to prevent confusion you created. Fram (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you are completely wrong. My government name is Sam Brodie, I can't change that sorry.

I have also worked with Derek Ali on the song "No Use" by 03 Greedo, he has won 4 Grammys and is a mixing engineer.

Another example: Blair Ferguson is a Scottish Music Producer and Songwriter, he just won a Grammy with SZA.

Here are some articles and photos to educate yourself. You can delete my Wikipedia if you think it should be deleted, but I won't let you lie about me. You are wrong, and that's okay sometimes as long as you apologize.

I have worked with multiple Grammy Winners - I'm not aggrandizing anything.

Derek Ali (MixedByAli) - https://www.grammy.com/artists/derek-ali/17733

Blair Ferguson, with his Grammy https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-grammy-winner-blair-ferguson-32096202

More information from the Recording Academy: https://www2.grammy.com/PDFs/Recording_Academy/Producers_And_Engineers/Producer_Definitions.pdf Sambrodie (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source for you: https://www.quora.com/Do-music-producers-get-their-own-Grammy-separate-from-the-artist Sambrodie (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First "my name changed in 2023 hence the lack of new articles.", now "My government name is Sam Brodie, I can't change that sorry." If you don't want people to be "completely wrong", don't give such contradictory replies. Fram (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have contradicted yourself twice. And if you read my Wikipedia page instead of just trying to delete it for reasons that aren't true you would know that I changed my artist name from $am Brodie back to my government name Sam Brodie. Sambrodie (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Working with notable people does not make you notable. You become notable by being discussed as yourself by reliable sources. A simple mention of your name in a list is also not sufficient. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - There may be notability to be found, but this is an autobiography that isn't helping itself by over-stating notability. It also relies way too much on linking lists and primary sources on Spotify. So I think put it back to a draft, and let someone who isn't the article subject write neutrally about him, citing sources where the subject is actually discussed, instead of listed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Delete. I've tried improving the article in a hope that it might yet prove keepable, but the article creator isn't interested in being helped and keeps reverting. It's not suitable as it is currently. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting the improvements because some of the edits were messy, that's all. There were words and numbers mixed together, sources being jumbled up and things weren't accurate anymore. I have changed it now to be accurate, and improved. Sambrodie (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

What did I write subjectively about, that can't be objectively or neutrally proved? Sambrodie (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here is not about what is objective or provable, but but whether the article subject is notable. Primary sources, i.e. content published by the individuals themselves, or by their record companies, do not really help to prove notability. As has been explained above, notability is not established by working with notable people, and while lists mentions may be accurate and cited, they do not demonstrate notability. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content that you are referring to is Published by Spotify, Apple Music and Billboard Charts. This is a way of establishing notability. I'm not posting Spotify links to random things, or songs with no relevance. They are to prove I have charted, which is apart of the establishing notability process. Sambrodie (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, you are WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. You've said your piece, I suggest letting it lie now. BrigadierG (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sambrodie Spotify and Apple Music aren't relevant. "Charting" in the WP:NMUSIC guideline refers to national charts. -- asilvering (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"They may occasionally be mentioned in article prose if special circumstances warrant it. "Special circumstances" include notable controversies alleging chart manipulation, or cases where eligibility requirements prevented standard charts from recognizing the sales."

There is no Billboard or Nielsen Soundscan chart for Russia, because of the war in Ukraine it was removed or was non-existent in the first place.

There is no chart in San Francisco on Billboard or Nielsen Soundscan because it is a city, but there is on Spotify.

There is no album chart for Ukraine on Billboard or Nielsen Soundscan because they only publish weekly charting songs.

Other than that, I do reference a Billboard charting song too which is verified through Nielsen Soundscan in my article. Sambrodie (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Similarly, some charts representing the home country of the artist or composer (this can mean country of origin, country of residence, official nationality or any country where the artist or composer has lived for a substantial part of their lives) or releases with a strong link to the country in question (e.g. Eurovision entries), can be included if no other suitable charts can be located." Sambrodie (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Music and Spotify streams aren't audited and we don't use them for notability, simply for the fact people have streaming farms to boost their numbers (literally walls of ipods, streaming the same song). Nothing has been found we can use for reliable sourcing, nothing extensive covering this individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2024 (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.