Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piff the Magic Dragon


 * 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) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Piff the Magic Dragon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is of dubious notability, barely passing WP:GNG and article details subject's progress through a game show. Article lacks substance, references and detail. Dkendr (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Had to laugh that this act made it to Wikipedia. Funny act. The comedian is not notable/encyclopedic - the act, less so - it didn't even win. Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE and WP:DIDNOTWIN. North America1000 00:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – The subject comfortably passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to :, , , , , , , , , , . Note that on the surface, some of the headlines suggest trivial coverage, but be sure to read the sources, most of which provide significant background about the subject. Note that per WP:NEXIST, part of Wikipedia's main Notability guideline page, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles; it's based upon the availability of reliable sources. North America1000 18:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Northamerica. Seems to pass basic notability. There are a number of sources noted. Only reservation is that his career could go either way from this point. Eagleash (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Note that per WP:NTEMP, part of Wikipedia's main Notability guideline page, notability is not tempoarary; "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage". North America1000 19:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems to play to WP:TOOSOON in favor of deletion, not keeping. Dkendr (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say though there may be adequate sources out there to establish some degree of notoriety if not notability the article does not capitalize on them and does not convey anything besides "Piff and his dog were on a game show." I don't think there's enough there to craft a decent article out of, hence, I still maintain "delete." Dkendr (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article conveys plenty beyond "Piff and his dog were on a game show." See also: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. North America1000 19:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I know, its just a point to add to the discussion for other editors' consideration. You would say that wouldn't you? :P Eagleash (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't say that - I stand behind my assessment of the article. In fact the most recent substantive edit to that article was the removal of a passage about the subject's appearance in the game show's final round.  There is nothing there and it's WP:TOOSOON to show there will be enough.  WP:BASIC doesn't cut it for media figures; they're held to the (ephemerally) more stringent WP:GNG.  I didn't say anything about cleanup; there's been cleanup notifications on the page for quite a while that were never acted upon.  The article doesn't convey anything except "Piff and his dog were on a game show."  Cleanup isn't the problem - there's no meat on those bones and they don't belong here. Dkendr (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG and WP:BASIC say nothing about media figures supposedly being held to WP:GNG as opposed to WP:BASIC. Sure, you don't like the article and want it deleted, but let's not make up our own notability guidelines here. North America1000 22:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Do me the courtesy of not assigning a personal animus to me about the article or its subject. I proposed the article for deletion, and therefore I am going to argue for deletion, just as you're arguing for retention.  I don't make your motives personal - don't make mine personal either. Ultimately this is a community and will reach a consensus we all respect. Dkendr (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal at all, or intended. Sorry if you were offended. So, how does WP:GNG trump WP:BASIC for subjects? WP:BASIC is part of the Notability (people) page, which is entirely relevant toward people. North America1000 02:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BASIC refers to people - but the article isn't necessarily about a single person, it's about a magic act called "Piff the Magic Dragon." The individual behind the act isn't noteworthy enough to have his own article by Wikipedia standards - at the very least if it was it'd be revised into a section in the act's article.  Incidentally, the performer behind the act fails WP:BASIC since he is not profiled independently of the "Piff" character in any of these references. WP:GNG holds that notability isn't temporary, but that is tempered by WP:TOOSOON, which is where I believe that the Piff the Magic Dragon act fails to achieve sufficient notability, to wit: Piff didn't win on the game show, a level of notoriety was attained on a game show, and the article details just his appearance on said game show.  WP:GNG specifically addresses this scenario: Orbiting a clearly notable entity (the game show) does not make the satellite (Piff the Magic Dragon) notable by association.  The notes about poor or missing references, poor structure and lack of detail on that article aren't new, and they've never been addressed.  (That's irrelevant to the notability issue I raised in the original AfD nomination per WP:CONTN.)  There just isn't enough supporting material on the performer or the act once you take away the game show, and at that point the act is just a novelty magician in a funny costume.  Of course WP:TOOSOON could be revoked later if the act takes off but that is another debate for another day.  Dkendr (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The man and character are one in the same, and the man/character also passes WP:GNG. The following sources I listed above also include the subject's name:, , , , , , , . Lastly, WP:TOOSOON is an opinion essay, but nevertheless, it states in its lead, "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." Independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage do exist, so the opinion essay does not even confer to this subject. North America1000 06:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm getting tired of this back and forth. You can twist and nitpick any policy you want any way you want and cherry pick bits of policies to fit your argument all you like.  The bottom line is, is the actor notable, NO.  Is the act notable, NO.  Does the subject stand alone without the game show appearance, NO.  Is the article encyclopedic and of sufficient quality, NO.  The argument seems to be that the more stringent standard fails so let's apply the looser standard.  The article fails on the media standards so let's make it a BLP.  I'm not going to be sidetracked again on this topic.  My vote stands as STRONG DELETE.  Please don't come back on my talk page asking me to reconsider. Dkendr (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Whatever. Cheers, North America1000 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're trying to negate anything I say by ascribing a personal animus or motivation. I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that you tried it or the fact that I took the bait and called you on it. Dkendr (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, I don't do argumentum ad hominem. Sorry again if I offended your sensibilities. We disagree in re the subject, so let's just keep it at that. Cheers, North America1000 16:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Nobody said you made an ad hominem argument. You suggested I was motivated by WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT which assumes a personal bias against the article subject rather than an objective reading of the article's noteworthiness and quality.  My personal opinion of the subject is irrelevant, and the nomination for deletion stands on the facts.  Don't assign my motivations to personal animus. Dkendr (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry again if I offended your sensibilities. Cheerio, North America1000 16:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sufficient coverage exists, and he's not simply known for America's Got Talent. I didn't even know he's been on it but was aware of him from his British TV appearances. --Michig (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have some references that could be added to the article detailing the act's British TV appearances and any coverage on that side of the pond? If you can add that to the article then some critical mass might be achieved and the whole debate becomes moot. In other words WP:PUOSU.  Dkendr (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Question: Is this one of the top magicians (actually magicial acts) in history? Is it encyclopedic? This wasn't even a reality game show winner or in the top 3. He didn't win on Penn and Teller, either. When do these "acts" become encyclopedia (Piff is not his name, its his act). Do credible third party references not matter here? Nothing in the article is covered in the citations. I have to admit, this is confusing to me - are game show contestants (pop culture) getting to much credibility in Wiki-world (like computer games)? I found a nav box for Americas Got Talent if it helps. Look at some of these articles - no meaningful content in them - no meaningful accomplishment in their field. Example is Kevin Skinner one of the most significant country western singers? Encyclopedic? This whl;e thing feels like marketing of the show - the symmetry is startling. Just encouraging everyone to find some rationalle to support their votes.  Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – The template above is virtually all about other topics than the subject being discussed herein. See also: Other stuff exists. North America1000 00:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The table shows that everyone in the history of the show who got an honorable mention or better has an article and if you click on the links you will see a striking similarity in many of of lessor talents in terms of formatting. Coincidence or WP:SPAM? With this logic, we should start listing the contestants on Jeopardy. I personally think this entertainer is a great novelty act, but my Wikipedia editor's view say little significant accomplishment and only minor press coverage likely driven by the talents shows PR office. I think some of these other acts should also be deleted. Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I find it timely at this point to diss the dissident. What a sad expenditure of gall this wiki psyc is. I just spent lots of time watching all the Piff performances on youtube. Since USA is a rather large country, and a large number of people are watching the show, I am sure there must be millions aware of as well as fond of this performer.  This regime of deleting wiki entries that puff and droll pedants disapprove of reeks of "1984". In fact, I just specifically went to Wikipedia to find out if Piff won the contest or not, and also went to see if there was any other information about the act. I would certainly not expect to find this kind of information in Encyclopedia Britannica or whatever the humorless toads consider encyclopedic. As a verb I always thought that word was associated with completeness and conciseness, as in encyclopedic memory. Which would include not just the rivers i Belgium, but also lesser known tributaries. But maybe not names of all current living pets in Belgium. I would consider Piff at the level of tributary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.75.17 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 January 2016


 * Your remark shouldn't be taken seriously and you're either the article subject hiding behind a sock puppet, his agent, or someone who is not as familiar with the subject's genitalia as he/she would like to be. Dkendr (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: He's not just a guy in a stupid dragon suit, but a notable magician, and has non-trivial coverage, including from before he was Piff. I've added his three Magic Circle Awards to the article, which should be more or less sufficient to establish notability on their own!  undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  01:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I note that the Citywealth Magic Circle Awards have been themselves the subject of a debate as to whether a list of winners of said award was noteworthy. Dkendr (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They're not the Citywealth (financial) Awards, but the awards of The Magic Circle. undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  16:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no mention of "Magic Circle awards" on that article and the only mention I could find for those awards on Google was the Citywealth awards. How notable could these awards actually be? Dkendr (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2016 (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.