Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel O'Brien (comedian)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel O'Brien (comedian)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, mentioned only in youtube, blogs, and articles written for site or other parts of site. Soxwon (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: O'Brien is a major contributor at the notable Cracked.com. A cursory search reveals significant coverage at Forbes, The Huffington Post and ESPN. Faustus37 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to look at the sources, you would notice that HP was an interview of Michael Swaim and the ESPN source was a short two-question interview for Page 2 with Swaim (with Swaim answering one of the questions). The only one that would qualify as significant coverage would be Forbes, if you stipped out the non-notable coverage you wouldn't have an article. He's famous at Cracked.com, but has little in the way of notable coverage. Soxwon (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the HP article is indeed an interview of Swaim, O'Brien is mentioned repeatedly and in a non-trivial way. The ESPN article reveals O'Brien is a Streamy Award recipient, which gives him claim to WP:CREATIVE#4 Faustus37 (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Faustus37 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage of him at Forbes [1]. He clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER #1 and #2, as his episodes and other work are seen by millions. Also WP:CREATIVE #4 since his work has "won significant critical attention". Dream Focus 10:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Streamy represents significant critical coverage? I would be willing to admit #2 for WP:ENTERTAINER (though whether that qualifies for an article is another debate), but #1 (Obsessive Pop Culture Disorder, After Hours, and Agents of Cracked are hardly notable productions) and especially #4 are stretching it. Soxwon (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you admit we have a case for WP:ENTERTAINER#2, then notability is sufficiently established. Faustus37 (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative 4, his work does get significant attention and mention from the critics. Entertainment 1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." He has in fact had a significant role in these shows, which are notable because of the coverage they get. Dream Focus 13:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ample coverage across multiple different noteworthy secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A single Forbes piece and a two question interview shared with Swaim by ESPN Page two qualify as multiple noteworthy secondary sources? Soxwon (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. I understand that the coverage is minimal, but that plus the award is (barely!) sufficient in my book. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the most notable individual, and without the Forbes piece I'd say delete, but with that I'd say he falls just on the other side of significant coverage, although not by any great leaps and bounds. - Sudo Ghost 17:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there was consensus enough that this could have remained closed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:58, 10 December 2012 (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.