Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Strong: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:59, 9 February 2007

Robert Strong

Non-notable magician. The article claims he was in the film version of Rent but the magician's own website and IMDB fail to back this claim up. He is a performer and while he may be good at what he does, he hasn't attained any level of notability which would deserve an encyclopedia article. IrishGuy ^talk 22:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found to verify the claims of importance. Article mentions a story on "insidebayarea.com" but the link doesn't appear to work. (Note: I removed the CSD tag, but that was because it asserted importance and the claims needed more investigation to determine if they were true) --W.marsh 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some sources have been located, and the article re-written. I don't think it makes a really strong case of notability yet, but there's enough there for me to say keep, so that the article can continue to grow. --El on ka 03:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Weak delete based on lack of references. He's got a great website which implies that there are reliable sources out there, such as reviews in the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post, but there's not enough detail to actually verify anything. I haven't been able to locate anything solid on Google searches either -- everything I come up with is promotional in nature. If someone can find any reliable sources to verify sufficient notability though, I'd be willing to switch my opinion to keep. --El on ka 00:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete based on all the reasons listed already. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disclose that I'm a friend of Robert's, but my argument for recommending a keep is that I have read all the articles written (Washington Post, City Times, Gold River News) and seen the Inside Bay Area (both online and in print). I'm looking for the Inside Bay Area link in the Internet Archive. User:dattner--Dattner 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 *'''Weak keep''' Some sources have been located, and the article re-written.  I don't think it makes a really strong case of notability yet, but there's enough there for me to say keep, so that the article can continue to grow. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 03:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)<s>Weak delete based on lack of references.  He's got a great website which implies that there are reliable sources out there, such as reviews in the ''Baltimore Sun'' and ''Washington Post'', but there's not enough detail to actually verify anything. I haven't been able to locate anything solid on Google searches either -- everything I come up with is promotional in nature.  If someone ''can'' find any reliable sources to verify sufficient notability though, I'd be willing to switch my opinion to keep. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 00:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)</s>
 *'''Weak delete''' based on all the reasons listed already. [[User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea|Mermaid from the Baltic Sea]] 00:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' I disclose that I'm a friend of Robert's, but my argument for recommending a keep is that I have read all the articles written (Washington Post, City Times, Gold River News) and seen the Inside Bay Area (both online and in print).  I'm looking for the Inside Bay Area link in the Internet Archive. [[User:dattner]]--[[User:Dattner|Dattner]] 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)