Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Iceman (performer)


 * 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. Per sourcing identified during the discussion Star   Mississippi  14:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The Iceman (performer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Artist fails WP:GNG, sourced to a Wordpress blog, incidental mentions by others and Edinburgh Festival Fringe programmes. Oh, and an artwork sales website. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Fringe programme is an important publication and a genuine historic document that we are lucky to have available online. The Wordpress blog does not belong to the subject but to a comedy historian and it is filled with interesting items. The Iceman might be obscure but those "incidental mentions" are important and genuine. Moreover, he is mentioned on radio and on podcasts and in printed books quite regularly: I can see people searching for him and finding little in the top pages of Google; as such this Wikipedia article provides a useful index to buried online treasure. Deletion would be ruthless and would serve little advantage. Angry Candy (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Moreover, there are authoritative references in the page that @Alexandermcnabb didn't mention in their summary: a review in the Independent for example. Even so, I'd be happy to work to strengthen the references in the article and I'm sure others would contribute too. But could we do it without the threat of deletion hanging over us? With reference to the Fringe Programme and the interview and the commercial reference, could we apply the following tag instead? Angry Candy (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been adding references where I can. I removed the commercial link objected to and replaced it with a more objective reference. It's not easy to find references for someone whose career predates online media; I know he had several reviews in the Independent but they seem to have vanished. If anyone reading this is good at digging up old items on archive.org, I'd be grateful for any assistance. Angry Candy (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've found and added references from The Stage and The List. The subject is the main focus of these articles; the one from The Stage is a profile. Angry Candy (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep With the sources above, just barely at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am still working hard to support the keeping of this article. I have now added a reference from the Evening Standard and a very substantial reference (a lead article) from The Independent. Angry Candy (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2022 (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.