Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Murray (comedian)

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 sources found by Gråbergs Gråa Sång were not challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Murray (comedian)[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)

Article has been created & deleted more than once now and every now & again it still pops up. Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources so as usual fails WP:GNG. Subject hasn’t made any significant impact in comedy/acting industry or won any major notable awards so falls short of WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2000 google news hits. [1] Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hits are not notability. If significant independent coverage in RS exists, why not link to the WP:THREE strongest sources? b uidhe 02:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 2000 hits is notability. With his name in quotes, no less. If you don't know that, then you shouldn't be voting at AfD. I don't want to go searching for everything about him. I'm trying to resist how people us AfD to blackmail editors into working on an article. Maybe we need a new quideline WP:2000.

Comment: This is simply not true in all cases. I just did WP:BEFORE for another bio AfD that had a huge amount of hits. Almost all were lists of people with no additional info about the subject, or focused on one hook-worthy statement made by the person in a single interview published by his employer. I'd agree that 2000 hits make notability seem possible or even likely (and definitely demanding of closer inspection), but it's appropriately not a guideline. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Fisher generally it’s a good idea to always sign your comments for the sake of clarity.Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is heavily linked to the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sal Vulcano, so perhaps this one should be retroactively bundled with the outcome of the other AfD? Not sure if that's the correct procedure, but at least wanted to make sure that people knew that that discussion was going on. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "His name in quotes" does not show that a James Murray hit is about this one. This is far too common a name to show notability just on hits. beyond that hits will with a performer generate lots of primary sources of his performances which is not the same as indepdent, 3rd party coverage. In the same way we cannot show a writer is notable with lots of google hits if most are to works by as opposed to about that writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator says they are not notable, which they didn't check and is false, so you just say "that false thing they said is true". Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I want a 100 to 1 ratio. I prove this is notable, and you vote keep on your next 100 AfDs. Otherwise, this is just "I'll put in one minute of time to say delete, and you must put in 100 minutes of time to say keep". It's not fair. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sources suggest notability: [2][3][4][5][6]. That said, the current citing in the article sucks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gråbergs Gråa Sång, who found several sources that appear to meet WP:SIGCOV. It seems like this conversation got derailed by the "WP:2000" comment, and delete votes are responding to the invalidity of that argument rather than bypassing it and conducting WP:BEFORE. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 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.