Deletion of Jonathan Desbiens (2nd nomination)

Comment: I'm going to reiterate my earlier delete vote.  There are not enough reliable sources to suggest sufficient notability. I know very little about him after reading the coverage that is there now.  Were he more notable, there'd be more biographical info.  Most of the coverage focuses on the subjects of his videos, but not him.  There is a mention of an upcoming feature film, so perhaps this is . The article also suffers from , which I suppose is an unfortunate side effect of trying to pad the reference section for the deletion defense
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:OVERCITE)

Comment: The notability standard for music video directors needs to be, and is, that they're the ''subject'' of enough |reliable source coverage to properly support the article. It is not enough that directories and unreliable sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of the musicians he worked with nominally |verify that he did the claimed work; the requirement is that media coverage exists ''about him''. And even for a musician, a Juno Award nomination would still depend on their being the ''subject'' of reliable source coverage — it would ''not'' make a musician notable enough to be kept if they were so unsourceable otherwise that nominal verification of the Juno nomination in the Juno Awards' own |self-published database of its own nominees was the ''strongest'' source that was actually present anywhere in the entire article. But this isn't based on reliable sources; it's based almost entirely on unreliable and namecheck sources, not reliable source coverage ''about'' Jonathan Desbiens. No prejudice against recreation in the future ''if'' someone can do ''better'' than this, but this as written and sourced still ain't good enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:SELFPUB)

Comment: Cunard's sources are enough to qualify the subject on notability (hats off to him, as always). Contrary to what is mentioned above, one doesn't necessarily require ''mainstream media'' sources to prove notability; one requires ''reliable sources'' – and all sources provided by Cunard seem reliable.  applies here quite appropriately. This Afd should be closed at this point
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)