Deletion of Dan Sperry

Comment: Coverage in a variety of sources passes  and .  Articles include the NY Times,https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/theater/the-illusionists-a-high-tech-magic-extravaganza.html, Boston Globe,https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/theater/dance/2017/03/30/not-your-everyday-illusionist-and-chewed-life-saver-proof/SrYSubBWVjbSqIAdQnGaGJ/story.html, OC Register,http://www.ocregister.com/2016/02/04/illusionists-conjures-miracles-las-vegas-glitz/ OC Weekly,http://www.ocweekly.com/music/dan-sperrys-magic-is-marilyn-manson-meets-david-copperfield-6939557 Twin Cities Pioneer Press http://www.twincities.com/2015/03/18/he-looks-like-marilyn-manson-hes-a-master-magician-and-hes-from-minnesota/, Sioux City Journal http://siouxcityjournal.com/entertainment/arts-and-theatre/a-library-of-magicians-dan-sperry-adds-his-volume-to/article_44f01a0e-6f9b-565d-b74e-a27dc8cd31e4.html and Fast Company https://www.fastcompany.com/3035324/penn-jillette-and-wizard-wars-magicians-explain-how-magic-works-and-why-its-still-relevant.  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Are_interviews_considered_secondary_sources.3F to get some clarity on this issue.  Check it out if you have an hour to kill
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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  quality
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)