Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nik Richie
subject seems to be notable enough for an article, though most of the arguments supporting that position have used poor sources.  calls for multiple, published secondary sources with substantial depth of coverage. The subject has clearly received substantial coverage, but a week after AfD nomination I still don't see anyone making a solid argument for notability. I looked for myself and the article still has poor sources: I see primary sources (e.g. interviews), secondary sources that offer non-substantial coverage (e.g. they are about his wife), a source that is not independent of the subject (i.e. his website), and secondary sources that are unreliable or dubiously reliable (e.g. gossip sites). Those are fine for supporting certain claims, but not for establishing notability. ''However'', I found enough to satisfy my own evaluation of the subject with respect to . I would say the best sources I saw for establishing notability are these: http://www.flurtsite.com/2012/05/dirty-rotten-scoundrels/, http://www.azcentral.com/ent/calendar/articles/2009/01/09/20090109toparizonans-richie.html, http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/0530sr-dirtyscottsdale0531-ON.html, http://vegasseven.com/news/2010/july/01/nik-richie. They are secondary sources (with the exception of the interview by Vegas Seven, but it does have a couple paragraphs of analysis that could be considered a secondary source), they are independent from the subject and each other, they all have Nik Richie himself as the focus, and at a glance they seem to be reliable to me
— User:BigNate37, 18:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BASIC||WP:BIO (Wikipedia:Notability)