Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Sperry

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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sperry

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

Self-promotional stub about a figure who is lacking in references from reliable sources. In the absence of such sources, there is little reason for the stub to remain as an article, especially amid repeated mass removals of unsourced sections for self-promotion. The only significant expansions to the page have been made by IP single-purpose accounts, and there is no reason for the article to exist in my view in the absence of these reliable sources and possible violations of BLP policy. (First attempt at AfD, apologies if formatted incorrectly). Stormy clouds (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability criteria for a magician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any SNG for magicians — not that that matters, since he clearly passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough evidence in reliable sources to establish his notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look? It took me about two minutes on the first page of a Google query. Carrite (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Much to my surprise, this appears to be a GNG pass. HERE is a piece from the Great Falls Tribune, including an interview. And THIS is a feature story on him in the Pioneer Press from Minneapolis-St. Paul. And ANOTHER article on him, this from the Las Vegas Review Journal. That, my friends, fits the definition of multiple, independently published sources of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the subject — which is what we are looking for at AfD. Passes GNG. "Marilyn Manson meets David Copperfield," one of those calls him — that seems about right. Don't get tripped up on the IDONTLIKEIT and DOESNTSEEMNOTABLE AfD missteps... Carrite (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sources provided by Carrite above: local two bit press pieces are not enough to meet the GNG in my book, and some of those are primary sourcing as well (interviews), so they don't count towards the GNG anyway. He also certainly doesn't meet WP:ENT, which is what I suppose those above are arguing for when they discuss the subject notability guideline. I'll throw in my standard critique of the GNG in here where we read it to mean that someone where the available sourcing makes clear they shouldn't be included because of how insignificant they are actually means they should be included. Nothing here suggests that the subject is important or notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in a variety of sources passes WP:RS and WP:GNG. Articles include the NY Times,[[1]], Boston Globe,[[2]], OC Register,[[3]] OC Weekly,[[4]] Twin Cities Pioneer Press [[5]], Sioux City Journal [[6]] and Fast Company [[7]]. I disagree that interviews are ineligible to use as primary sources, since they are the basis for much biographical info that may otherwise not be included in articles. I started a discussion on the No Original Research talk page [[8]] to get some clarity on this issue. Check it out if you have an hour to kill. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources brought forward in this discussion are sufficient to establish notabilty. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the "he meets GNG though it doesn't seem like he should" crowd. On the other hand, the page on his group The Illusionists is nearly at WP:TNT quality. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:48, 10 November 2017 (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.