Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brock Gill


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Brock Gill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Really tricky to assess this, hence it sitting in CAT:NN for 11 years. Most information on him, online and in this article, is promotional and has a lot of fluff. I couldn't find anything that pushed him over the bar of WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  ~ Amkgp  💬  14:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  ~ Amkgp  💬  14:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete most of this is based on something written by his wife which is clearly not a secondary source. The one article that does cover him is in an extremely local paper. There is clearly not enough coverage to add up to passing the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non notable. --Devokewater (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I see coverage in the following articles:
 * "The minister of magic" by Trudy Walz, The Hackensack Record (Sept 19, 2003)
 * "Revealing miracles" by John Gerome, Associated Press (Dec 17, 2005)
 * "Illusionist seeks miracles of Jesus" by Ken Beck, The Nashville Tennesseean (Dec 20, 2005)
 * "Illusionist performs magic with a message" by Jim Vorel, The Decatur Herald & Review (March 30, 2012)
 * There's more available on Newspapers.com; those are just four examples. It looks like he's consistently had a low-but-decent level of coverage throughout his career for at least a decade. I think that this demonstrates notability. I'll put these on the page as a Further Reading section so that editors can use them to improve the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D My Son  04:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Plainly notable with legit 3rd-party coverage discovered by Toughpigs.  --Lockley (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – Appears to comfortably meet WP:BASIC per the sources presented herein. I cannot access the full articles via the newspapers.com website, so AGF that they provide significant coverage. North America1000 13:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually just learned how to use Newspaper.com clippings last week. :) I just replaced the four links above with clippings that you should be able to see. I appreciate the AGF. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2020 (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.