Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Ragusea


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Adam Ragusea

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article does not satisfy WP:GNG. Also falls short of WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ENT. Clarysandy (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators,  and Actors and filmmakers. Clarysandy (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete had hope for Slate magazine, but they look like interviews. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. High-profile YouTubers are not automatically notable, but coverage already listed in the article in Slate, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and WMAZ-TV appears in-depth, independent, and reliable, enough for a pass of WP:GNG. An interview is in-depth coverage. There is nothing in GNG saying otherwise. This "interviews don't count" thing exhibited by Oaktree's comment above is pure superstition with no basis in guidelines or policy. Additionally, coverage in Mashed and Macon Magazine  and more interviews on WUOT  and PBS  may also count towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PRIMARY, interviews are considered primary sources, so they do not establish notability (per WP:GNG: "Sources" should be secondary sources). Also, it seems you linked to the wrong Mashed article. Is this the one you were looking for? ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that WP:PRIMARY doesn't note that not all interviews are primary sources. WP:INTERVIEWS is the closest policy here that makes this distinction, and that essay states that interviews can vary in terms of primary and secondary material (like primary material from the interviewee and secondary commentary from the interviewer), meaning they should be evaluated by a case-by-case basis. And some of the interviews posted here have secondary material that establish his notability. PantheonRadiance (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - To be fair though, the first Slate source looks like a Q/A interview which consists mainly of answers from Raguesa himself. The AJ-C article is definitely in line with a secondary source-like interview, and so is the Macon Mag article and this source. While yes, they do include statements straight from him, these sources also add extra commentary from the writer too. It's pretty hard for journalists to write articles about a person without at least adding info from the person themselves - that's the whole point of secondary sources in the first place. PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I wrote this article rather prematurely when I was in high school, so, yes, it could do with some work, but the above users have shown that there is a good amount of stuff to work with. Furthermore, his name has become a sort of standard, as this article from Michigan Daily makes clear when it cites him alongside J. Kenji Lopez-Alt as household names. That's certainly notability of a sort. puggo (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet,  and Pennsylvania.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - technically can keep due to a minimum number of quality sources. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:SIGCOV in RS Bruxton (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2022 (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.