Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Willis

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 no consensus. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but only one of the two "keep" !voters says anything about sources. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Willis[edit]

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

No plausible assertions of notability in present article; glittering generalities and a lot of "notability by acquaintance". Orange Mike | Talk 09:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike - I read the notability by acquaintance section and I don't think it applies here. In the dance world, it is seen as a great accomplishment for a dancer to _work_ for a renowned artist, which he has. His affiliation with artists of great visibility is not a social affiliation, it is a _work_ affiliation. This adds to his credibility, imo. Danceengine (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Danceengine[reply]
Boris Willis is a dancer, choreographer, and theorist of profound significance in the dance scene of today. His work has achieved international recognition. I do not think this page should be deleted. Danceengine (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Danceengine[reply]
Keep - substantial coverage online in GNEWS archives per WP:BASIC on his performances and choreography from the Wash Post, Wash Times, Miami Herald, JFK Center website, etc., though most of the GNEWS archive hits are unfortunately behind paywalls. Top Jim (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Top Jim. Danceengine (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)danceengine[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2010 (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.