Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Van Kirk


 * 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 no consensus. slakr \ talk / 06:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Van Kirk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:WCS100 (creator) with the following edit summary: "Has more than a few references and I'm finding several more in a Google search. We better play this out via AfD before we toss this much content". Well, we are here now; I don't see any refs that add proper, reliable, in-depth coverage. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Piotrus, I think you'd be aware by now that AfD isn't for articles that don't have references that "add proper, reliable, in-depth coverage." AfD is for determining if a subject is notable or not and it doesn't appear that your nomination has done any of the WP:BEFORE work to determine that.  A nomination that only points out my disagreement with a PROD seems as close to a non-argument as you can get.
 * Here are a list of references I found in just a few minutes that aren't included in the list already found in the article. In depth interview, LA Weekly coverage of Van Kirk's work, Book about Van Kirk being a "notable", Subject becomes Chili's spokesperson.
 * Outside of these references and the ones in the article, it seems clear to me, based on the articles about him or pointing him out in USA Today, Variety, LA Weekly, AV Club, and Splitsider, that the subject of this article plays notable role in area of comedy podcasts. He's also a current performer for Upright Citizens Brigade which was started by and produces notable members regularly.  He also is a writer for the news website www.Cover32.com.  I personally think that he satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO (point 2) with the independent and significant coverage form reliable sources but I also feel that the subject satisfies point 3 of WP:ENTERTAINER in that his body of work on specific podcasts has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. WCS100 (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * More for Yahoo Movies and Variety about a show the subject writes. WCS100 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right this is about notability. And notability does not only require sources, it requires reliable sources. And what I am saying is not that this article is unreferenced (which, I agree with you, is not an AfD problem), but rather, than the existing references I see (including ones you presented) are not reliable, and thus do not help to establish the subject's notability.
 * Let's start with your book finding. Following your link I cannot get a preview view, but the publisher is Emereo Publishing. From : "So what Roebuck/Tebbo/ Emereo have done is take publically available and randomly selected Wikipedia articles and charge for it." I am afraid that your source is nothing but a printed fork of our article(s).
 * Next, you find . Well, it may be an in-depth interview; it also appears to be a podcast, an audio-version of blog.
 * LA Weekly passes RS test; but our subject fails at any kind of in-depth, substanial coverage - he is mentioned there in passing, in a single sentence plus picture caption.
 * Next, we have a short news blurb in a regional, niche website (" centralized agency founded to share knowledge of "bureau-approved" comedy throughout the Greater Los Angeles area and spread joy in the form of live comedy to all citizens we can possibly reach."). That fails WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:AUD.
 * So, unless you can present sources that show him passing GNG/ARTIST, AfD is the right place for him to be. And please, don't just spam links here, but provide a review of them: explain why the source is reliable, and the extent of their coverage of the subject (passing mentions do not count). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't find any substantial sources about him. The best so far is the LA Weekly review of a show he starred in, but that's only one source. The refs here are either links to his "performances" (as podcasts), or mentions. The Comedy Bureau is a blog. Link #9 is unrelated (and an empty page). I can't find a reason to keep this, unless someone discovers a few more RS. LaMona (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Simple search shows me that this actor is widely known not only in his country. I believe that the requirements to finalize the article is enough. Shad Innet (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply being in Google is not enough to prove notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - I searched online and found nothing that suggests the subject meets WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. He gets some coverage as a comedian, but no more than the vast majority of other comedians.  Maybe someday he will be notable, but not yet.--Rpclod (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: This fellow is very much on the edge of the line between sufficient and insufficient note by independent RS. I think, if we scrutinize every source, we can find imperfections, but, taken all in all, they indicate so many discussions that the comedian either passes or is going to pass within a few months. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you are saying WP:TOOSOON, which is an argument for deletion and restoration at a future date. We don't keep articles because we think someone is going to be notable in the near future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the help to a newbie, but I actually wasn't saying that. I was suggesting that this person's career is moving so quickly that "TOOSOON" may not be relevant. I did not want to invoke that because the number of appearances and comments he is receiving in the past year, on different platforms, makes it seem like a fairly safe bet. I could be wrong. I often am. However, I do try to work on a "benefit of the doubt goes toward keep." My benefit of doubt is less than a lot of people's, but it still exists. One person thinks it's gullibility, another thinks its cynicism, but I think it's a good faith judgment. (If the guidelines could make the calls by themselves, we people wouldn't be necessary.) Hithladaeus (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you mind telling me which of the sources that mention him seem reliable? Please check my review of sources I posted above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2015 (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.