Max Silvestri: WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Not a strong keep, but there appears to be sufficient notability - The sources in the article currently are not useful due to being interviews or dead links, but there are some reviews of his work that can be found with minimal effort that tend to indicate notability ( Exclaim , The Diamondback , Vulture ) - There are also interviews, Q&As and other sources, but generally they are not as strong as the 3 reviews above to establish notoriety.  Shazback ( talk ) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : BLP, fails GNG and NBIO.  None of the sources in the article meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, the above sources, one may meet SIGCOV.  Source eval: Comments Source Appears to be part of a database of actors, questionable SIGCOV https://exclaim.ca/comedy/article/max_silvestri-jfl42_the_garrison_toronto_on_september_26 Promo, "people to watch" type article https://dbknews.com/0999/12/31/arc-lvfrh6zdvvdzjmqjjc3mgs7o3a/ Promo, "people to watch" type article https://www.vulture.com/2014/12/11-best-stand-up-specials-of-2014.html Ping me if other sources with SIGCOV are found.  // Timothy :: talk 13:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think WP:SIRS is the correct standard for evaluating these sources, since the article is not about an organization or company.  I'm surprised that a review of his show by Exclaim! doesn't attain SIGCOV.  Exclaim! is recognized as a perennial source by WikiProject Albums since 2009, a view which was supported on the Reliable Sources discussion board as recently as 2020 [45] .  The article is by a staff author, not an external contributor, and is well over the WP:100WORDS guideline, even after excluding the paragraph talking about the opening act.  Regarding the other two articles, what makes them WP:PRSOURCE ("promos") or on what basis are "people to watch" type articles excluded?  As far as I can see, the Vulture article is not identified as a press release, does not appear to be churnalism (I can't find an article with similar wording) and is identified as being written by a staff author.  It's short, but as Vulture is a perennial source [46] I am surprised 100+ words is so easily dismissed.  The Diamondback article does not appear to be churnalism, but as it's a less reputable source & authorship is less clear (DBK Admin, incoherent publication date) I understand this one is more open for discussion.  I haven't been involved in many AfDs, so more information on these topics would be useful for me going forwards.  Shazback ( talk ) 13:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk ) 05:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  I'd be interested in seeing another review of the sources in the article and this discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't see any merge target, and I don't see sufficient direct detailing coverage demonstrated by reliable sources applied, presented, or found which put this subject past ANYBIO, GNG or ENTERTAINER.  BusterD ( talk ) 20:55, 23 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete