Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurtis Conner

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. Missvain (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtis Conner[edit]

[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)

Fails GNG: nothing beyond Youtube and coverage of his YouTuber status. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comedians have rather high notability and also it is currently semi-protected. ~Cupper (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the 11 footnotes here, more than half are invalid support for notability: three are his own self-published social media content about himself, two are university student newspapers, one is a self-created press release announcing his own comedy show, and one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article whose core subject is something else. That leaves just four links that are acceptable, but none of them are verifying anything that would be "inherently" notable under our inclusion standards for entertainers — so the only notability claim they support is "notable because media coverage exists", and four links isn't enough to get there. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A few sources in the article seem to be reliable, including source #3. I also found some reliable sources which talk about him, whether fully or partially: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:ENT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Young Hollywood" is not a reliable or notability-supporting source; Iowa State Daily and The Gateway are both university student newspapers, not general market media, so they don't contribute any WP:GNG points; the Broadway World hit is his own press release announcing a performance, not journalistic coverage about the performance (on that site, you have to forget about anything that has the author credit given as "BWWNewsDesk" instead of a real person's name, because BWWNewsDesk means they're reprinting the subject's own self-published press release); Cincinnati CityBeat is an alt-weekly, which means it's fine to use but not enough to singlehandedly get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only valid new source you can provide over and above the mostly garbage sources that were already in the article. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found several sources, here, here, and here, and also considering Cincinnati CityBeat article found by ASTIG, I am convinced that this person passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are new sources; all three of them are already in the article, and already among the four sources that I assessed above as not enough. If a person doesn't have an accomplishment that constitutes an "inherent" notability claim that requires an article to exist, then it takes more than four hits of media coverage to get them over the "notable because media coverage exists" bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is literally the exact opposite of what WP:GNG says. Your opinion seems to be that if someone does clear a WP:SNG, than they are not notable, which is not only completely ludicrous, its also the exact opposite of what WP:SNG is, they are designed to supplement GNG, not replace it. Your personal rants do not override policy. So, I think you will find that according to the actual policy surrounding notability, "four hits of media coverage" is in fact double what is needed to prove notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG most certainly is not, and never has been, "if a person can show two hits of media coverage, then they're automatically exempted from having to actually pass the actual SNG for their occupation". GNG does not just count the footnotes and automatically keep anybody who has two — it tests the sources for their depth, their geographic and temporal range, their type and the context of what they're covering the person for, and discounts some sources as contributing less than other sources do. If the existence of two sources, without any further depth or range or context tests, were all it took to exempt a person from having to pass an SNG, then the list of people we would have to keep articles about would include every city and town councillor in every city and town on earth, unelected candidates for every political office in every election on earth, every school board trustee on earth, every musician who ever got local coverage for playing the local pub without ever accomplishing anything that would pass WP:NMUSIC, every high school athlete who ever got a blip of local human interest coverage for being on the high school football team despite having only nine toes, my mother's neighbour who got a bit of "news of the weird" coverage a few years back for finding a pig in her front yard, and me.
So no, the mere existence of two hits of media coverage is not in and of itself a GNG-based exemption from having to pass any SNGs — in actual fact, to get into Wikipedia on that little coverage, one or both of the sources would have to be verifying passage of an "inherently" notable criterion in an SNG. That is, if a person wins an Academy Award, then they get to be in Wikipedia on just one or two sources which verify that award win even if they have no other sources — but if a person has no "inherent" notability claims under any SNGs, and instead the notability claim you're shooting for is "because media coverage of him exists", then it does take a lot more than just two, three or four sources to get him over that bar. And that goes especially when two of the four hits come from a site listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as a problematic and non-ideal source, and a third comes from a local alternative weekly — if that's actually the best he can do, then it is not good enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim than the mere existence of a small handful of sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you do not get to make up stuff in complete contrast to what actual policy says. If you want to rewrite policy, that is your prerogative, but this is not the place to Wikilawyer an attempt to rewrite policy. Also, WP:BLP1E exists. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making up or rewriting or wikilawyering a goddamn thing. There is an established consensus that GNG is not just "count the footnotes, and keep everybody and everything who gets to two"; there is an established consensus that GNG tests sources for their depth, range and context, and not just their number alone; there is an established consensus that if you're shooting for "doesn't pass any SNGs, but is notable anyway just because media coverage exists", then it does take quite a bit more than just a small handful of media hits; there is an established consensus that Insider is a problematic source — it's literally marked as such in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources — which means it can be okay for very sparing use, but cannot be the core of an argument that a person passes GNG in the first place. Again, not making a damn thing up: we have an established consensus about how GNG actually works when matters of differing interpretation come up for debate and discussion, and I'm not wrong about what that established consensus is. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Searching News gets me over 500 hits across a wide variety of entertainment outlets. Several of them appear to be reliable sources. Then there is this in-depth bio piece, news of sold out shows in Chicago - all in all I have no issues with notability or sourcing availability.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2020 (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.