Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel O'Brien (comedian) (2nd nomination)

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel O'Brien (comedian)[edit]

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

Was kept last time entirely on the basis of a forbes piece. Well, it's a forbes contributor piece, actually - basically, a curated blog that is not a reliable source (with no editorial oversight). Same nomination rationale as last time "Not notable, mentioned only in youtube, blogs, and articles written for site or other parts of site." Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Esquire, Asbury Park Press, Huffpost, etc. It didn't take me very long to dig those out. Trivially passes WP:BEFORE. --Jayron 32 15:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Jayron32, plus New Jersey Monthly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)
Keep The sources in the article already (including those identified by Jayron32 and Djflem}} all demonstrate that he surpasses the notability standard. The Forbes piece is not what makes him notable. Alansohn (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One also sees that the closure of the the first nomination was dubious at best.Djflem (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, huffpo has only a mention, the other two are almost entirely interviews where he's promoting his book.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:48, 10 February 2018 (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.