Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Clairvoyants (2nd nomination)


 * 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The Clairvoyants
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Little notability in the article to satisfy WP:BASIC - notability hinges on their involvement in one television program, without covering anything about other performances (a part of the Lead says they "have been performing together since 2011", but does not go into detail about this. Strangely, this article could have been put under a PROD, except its name clashes with an article about a band that bore the same name and was deleted following an AfD (as seen here), hence the "2nd nomination" of the article. GUtt01 (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't find any significant coverage other than the AGT pages themselves, and theatres etc promoting the appearance of the duo. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Obviously meets WP:GNG: 2020 interview Another 2020 interview 2017 interview 2016 interview. Also meets WP:ANYBIO in that they have won several significant awards, including the Mandrake d'Or, which has also been won by David Copperfield and Penn and Teller. None of those reasons even have anything to do with their runner-up finish on America's Got Talent. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Mandrake d'Or is a notable award. Passes WP:ANYBIO. It looks like there is press in foreign languages, so a competent BEFORE search would need to be done in German, French, etc.4meter4 (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  09:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment the list of interviews provided by Sportsfan are not sufficient to meet GNG; since they are obviously not independent of the subject. As for the subject passing WP:ANYBIO; that is obviously not sufficient if the subject fails GNG/BASIC; as per Notability_(people) : "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The interviews obviously are independent of the subjects, as the subjects of the article aren't affiliated with any newspapers. I don't know why you are saying they aren't independent. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Interviews goes into more depth; but the essential bit is that all of the information in an interview comes from the subject, and therefore an interview cannot, by definition, be a source that is independent from the subject. Interview are also commonly defined as primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY for a few university library definitions of this), and therefore don't qualify for GNG either. The only misunderstanding here is by those arguing that interviews are somewhat acceptable sources for the purposes of determining notability. As for ANYBIO, it is clear that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. [...] conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." If there are not sufficient sources to substantiate the required evidence for notability, then there's no reason to keep. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  14:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:N says '"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.' None of the sources I listed were produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Interviews is an essay, not a policy. Link the relevant policy or discussion. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The overly legalistic interpretation of WP:N is clearly at odds with established precedent. I've already linked NOR (where interviews are clearly included as primary sources), and it's entirely logical that an interview is not independent of the subject no matter who produced it, as it the whole of the information within it comes from the subject themself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't buy it, but FWIW, the 2017 source above is not actually an interview. Here is a 2020 source that's not an interview. Here is a 2018 review. The AGT runner-up obviously yielded some sources, e.g. this one. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The second of these (2020, news.at) is an interview, it clearly contains material from the subject about themselves:"Vormittags zu Netflix, dann zu NBC und nachmittags zu CBS", beschreibt der gebürtige Kremser Thommy Ten, der eigentlich Thomas Höschele heißt, das hektische Treiben dort. Dass sie in ihrer alten Heimat sesshaft werden wollen, war ihm und der Niederösterreicherin Amélie van Tass, gebürtig Christina Gruber aus Hofstetten-Grünau, immer klar. "Wir sind durch unseren Beruf ohnehin auf der ganzen Welt zuhause. Deshalb wollten wir unseren Rückzugsort und die Lebensbasis hier haben", erklärt er an einem der ersten Tage des neuen Jahrs im gemütlichen Wohnzimmer des vor wenigen Wochen bezogenen Hauses. (translation not provided, since I assume you didn't cite sources without reading them or looking at google translate). The last one (noen.at), also: Viel Zeit, um zu feiern hatte der 29-Jährige allerdings nicht: „War leider nur eine kurze Party“, bestätigte der Magier, „wir sind schon wieder unterwegs, um Interviews zu geben und Shows aufzuzeichnen. Ganz Amerika ist an uns interessiert und möchte uns live erleben.“. Simply because something isn't marked "interview" or has been written up to not be in an obvious "question/answer" format does not mean it is not an interview. The other two seem fine on the surface of it, so that's maybe enough for a keep; although really these should have been presented much earlier. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it is, I'm afraid, a misunderstanding of common journalistic practice, which is to interview a subject and then produce a written report based on that interview. That an article is in interview format, question-and-answer form, includes quotes (even block quotes), or includes the opinion of the subject does not make the content no longer independent, nor does it make the interviewer no longer independent, nor does it make the interviewee the "source" (which is still the independent interviewer), nor does it remove the sort of editorial oversight we expect from reliable sources. Arguing that an interview doesn't contribute to notability because it might potentially be covered by what is described in an essay (yes, essay) is the only "overly legalistic interpretation" here. WP:COMMONSENSE still applies.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That essay is an accurate reflection of usual practice (and NOR is not a mere essay, and basing articles on primary sources is discouraged, so there you go), and that interviews are not independent of their subject is a commonly accepted fact in practice, which probably needs to be explicited if it is causing confusion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think its only confusing for people who don't know how interviews work (or feign ignorance thereof). It's not difficult, in my view, for the average person to discern the difference between "meet our CEO" type interviews conducted by employees or PR consultants (that wouldn't be independent reliable sources, let alone acceptable for gauging notability here), and the sort of interviews which have been common journalistic practice since the invention of the printing press. That some people ignorantly or intentionally conflate the two is another matter entirely.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - can't see any reason why the subject wouldn't pass WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO based on the above. Misunderstandings of the independence of interviews aside, I'm not seeing a strong rationale for deletion.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sportsfan77777`s comment. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2021 (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.