Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan the Escapist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. —Kurykh 23:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morgan the Escapist

Morgan the Escapist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable performer. Unable to find significant reliable sources to confirm notability.[1]. The fact that the first reference in the article is a Yahoo group doesn't help. Saikokira 23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, I found YouTube, MySpace and Wikipedia entries as the primary search hits. Not noteable enough. Pharmboy 00:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable per WP:BIO. All references are to non notable websites. Note: I have informed the user who created the article of this AfD process, as the nominator does not seem to have done so. —gorgan_almighty 09:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment It's not actually required that the refs pass notability only reliability. The Weekly World News passes notability, but I pity any editor claiming it's reliable.Horrorshowj 23:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The main argument for notability is that the subject is a woman working as a successful professional magician, ie. one who headlines shows under her own name rather than working as an assistant to a male magician. That is still quite rare and especially so in escapology. In addition, she seems to command respect from other established professionals in the magic and escapology business (as evidenced by threads on forums such as The Magic Cafe). This is certainly not one of those cases of a little-known local performer seeking to use Wikipedia as free advertising. I agree that the references could be improved, although I don't think they are quite as bad as at least one critic implied. For example, the Hong Kong Magic Festival is a genuine and substantial event that attracts recognised international names. The book to which she contributed was edited by a respected name in escapology. It is my hope and intention to get the references improved. I had planned to do some more work on this but I haven't had as much time recently as I'd reckoned on and most of my editing has been focused on another article. I am told there are articles in magazines such as Magic that could be cited to bolster her claims to notability but I am still waiting to obtain copies.Circusandmagicfan 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan
  • Unfortunately forums are not classed as reliable or notable sources on Wikipedia. Notability must be established by reliable secondary sources (in other words, news articles and the like). —gorgan_almighty 15:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteThe references don't amount to independent, reliable coverage. The bulk of it comes from the escape key website, and appears to have been written by the subject. I'm not finding any newspaper coverage to bolster the notability argument. All google hits for name in quotes appear to be for sites she's affiliated with or wikipedia mirrors. While I think she'll get there, she doesn't pass WP:Bio at this time.Horrorshowj 23:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom et al. Subject is WP:NN, and article fails WP:BIO. Being unique (i.e., a woman in a men's field) does not necessarily confer WP:N:notability. --Evb-wiki 17:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course I agree with everything you just said (see my comments above). As a point of speculation, the assertion that she's notable because she's a woman in a man's world, fails WP:SYNTH. The exception would be if several notable secondary sources had printed articles about her for that particular reason. That would have made her notable enough for inclusion. —gorgan_almighty 15:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
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.