Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Caveney


 * 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. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Mike Caveney

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Seems to be an online Resume. The sources listed are either the subject's own website sources or some fringe magician websites that seem like they were made by the persons listed there. For this BLP to convince me, I need to see some reliable verifiable sources, like some well-known media venue with an in-depth coverage of this person. If there are sources here that I do not understand and are sufficient, please indicate; I do not see passage of WP:BLP, WP:GNG. Also, I tagged for notability and creator/editor/owner of the article simply removed, twice. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – I believe Mr. Caveney has generated enough coverage from third party – independent – creditable and verifiable sources to have a spot here on Wikipedia. Used as an authoritarian (expert) voice in a New York Times review as shown here .  Additional use of Mr. Caveney as an expert in his field can be seen by the number of times he is shown as the citied source or contributor to numerous books on the subject of magic/illusionist as shown here at Google Books ].  Also the star of NBC's "World's Greatest Magic” as provided here .  Hope this helps.  ShoesssS Talk 19:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * When I first saw your comment I almost considered withdrawing my nomination, but when I looked at the NY Times source, it is nothing but a book review written by someone else that mentiones subject one time as the author's biographist? Not good enough.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * comment -Usually a book or author that is reviewed by the New York Times is one of the foundations in establishing notability in that the NYT typically only reviews specific books and authors that are notable. However, you are right in saying if I based my opinion on just this one review it is “…not good enough”.  That is why I also noted Mr. Caveney contributions and cities on the many other books shown in the above link.  Hope this explains my rational a little better.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Shoesss, but he did not write the book in that source.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Recently voted "stage magician of the year" by Magic Castle. That's notable. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Magic Castle is a private business. Hardly an independent source. Do our guidelines mention this as automatically notable as you seem to? WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Third party sources are in the article citing his recognition among peers. I don't understand why the article was nominated -- what would a non-fringe magician web site be?  What sort well-know media venue is going to cover stage magicians?  Us (magazine)?  USA Today? patsw (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If other authors believe this BLP! is notable, so be it. I do not think so, I could be wrong. David Copperfield is notable, and has been featured in stuff the likes of you mention.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not as important if you personally find him notable, or if your choice of well-known media venues find him notable, rather it is if he has special achievements or has been recognized by fellow magicians, and people who follow magicians. patsw (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I would venture to say that getting magician of the year from the Magci Castle is significant recognition from peers. A look at Google News results show much material behind pay walls making if difficult to evaluate but this LA Times article looks like it would qualify based on the summary. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Caveney is a noted authoritarian and expert on magic and magic history. He was recently credited as co-author of an important book about the history of magic titled, Magic, 1,400s-1950s, co-written by fellow magic historians Ricky Jay and Jim Steinmeyer for Taschen Books . For decades, he has generated significant coverage from third party and verifiable sources to remain on Wikipedia . He is an expert in the field of magic. His contributions can be seen by the number of times his name appears as the cited source and contributor to numerous books, articles and related documents on the subject of magic Google Books ]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milo Bixby (talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 October 2010 (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.