Talk:David Acer

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Magic Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagicWikipedia:WikiProject MagicTemplate:WikiProject MagicMagic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, March 21, 2007, see discussion.
Keep, July 31, 2006, see discussion.

As a respected author in his field as well as an actor and comedian, David Acer is notable. Therefore I am removing the tag. IrishGuy ^talk 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks information on the importance and/or notability of this person. Searches on Amazon failed to turn up books by him. His films and televsion credits are neglible, and his accomplishments do not seem to warrant an article. Is there any proof that he is somehow famous, notable, or important and not simply an esoteric magician with no cultural relevance?Mongoleer 22:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines for magicians are different. Magic books are rarely sold to the open public and therefore aren't carried by amazon. Although, a more in depth search would have shown that there is at least one book on amazon by Acer [1]. He has performed at FISM, which is a very notable honor. Additionally, he has an ongoing column in the largest magic magazine, Genii. Frankly, I believe the only reason you are pushing this is because I put an importance tag on Mudpiglet. That being the case, please read WP:POINT as that is against Wikipolicy. IrishGuy ^talk 22:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the Mudpiglet article, but if you want to compare the two I will. David Acer having an esoteric following of magicians with his hard to find books and weekly column in a magazine is notable, so Mudpiglet having a weekly column and being published in literary journals and online magazines is notable as well. I believe that David Acer deserves an article if he does indeed enjoy a small following as you say, but that means that Mudpiglet does as well because they are of a similar notoriety.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongoleer (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:POINT. You are violating policy. Beyond that, Mudpiglet has a weekly column...on his own site. There is no evidence at all that he has been published in any literary journals. David Acer has been published numerous times from outside sources...not just his own website. IrishGuy ^talk 23:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not about Mudpiglet, this is about David Acer. You brought up mudpiglet here. If you read his article you would realize that he is published in many more places than his own website which is only a few weeks old. His prominence has nothing to do with his website, that is simply the best source of his material. Read the articles before you mark them for deletion, or stop editing them altogether until you can do it right. The fact that Acer has performed at FISM is not culturally relevant or notable to anybody other than himself, and Genii is not a notable publication, it doesn't even have an article here(though I'm sure you'll change that now). This article has virtually no information about a person whose accomplishments are unimpressive and negligible. Mongoleer 23:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FISM is the largest and most prestigious magic gathering/competition. To be invited is an honor, and notable. Genii is, as noted, the largest and oldest continually published magic magazine in the world. Stop using WP:POINT because you are angry about mudpiglet. IrishGuy ^talk 23:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not angry about mudpiglet, I just disagree that it deserves deletion. This does not change the fact that magic is nothing more than a childish hobby, and aside from that fact David Acer has no reputable credits as a notable individual. This is like saying the high scorer at Street Fighter II in my local arcade deserves an article because, after all, he is the high scorer. This is a vanity page. Please read the ediors guidelines. Mongoleer 00:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIV. Calling magic nothing more than a childish hobby isn't exactly falling within Wikipolicy for civility. Vanity is when one writes about him/herself. I am not David Acer, ergo this isn't vanity. IrishGuy ^talk 00:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything uncivil about it, afterall, children are the target audience for "magic". One might as well write an article about a successful party clown. By the way, please refrain from using language like "ergo", this is not the film "the matrix", we can talk like real human beings. This person is not notable and this article is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongoleer (talk • contribs)

Actually, children aren't the target audience for magic. Only some magicians work for children, others work for adults. Ergo was the correct word, hence my use of it. Please read WP:CIV as you don't seem to understand the policy. IrishGuy ^talk 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caught IrishGuy ^talk 07:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't have anything to do with why this is a bad article. Sometimes, articles need to be taken down. Admit that this article is 3 sentences long, pointless, and about somebody that doesn't matter. I have reason to believe that you are David Acer, being obsessed with magic as you are. Therefore this is a vanity page. Mongoleer 07:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the primary and secondary sources? you have only cited references from the magician himself... not notable, according to your ambiguous use of the policy... Scrugbyhk 08:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above (and in the two AfDs) FISM grants notability as well as his IMDB credits. Please read WP:POINT before continuing. IrishGuy ^talk 08:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Information[edit]

There is unsourced material in this article. Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately. Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources. Note the difference between unsourced material and original research: Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source. It is unattributed but may be attributable. Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source. It is unattributable. The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. See: Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:No originial research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Content removal.