Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Sokol


 * 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   delete. The argument that there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources does not appear to have been successfully rebutted. T. Canens (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sokol

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This biography meets neither the criteria of WP:CREATIVE nor WP:NMUSIC so I believe that it shoould be deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- Jezhotwells (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Jezhotwells (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- Jezhotwells (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete he's done a lot of stuff, but none of it appears notable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Two his plays warranted mention in The New York Times. and . His work was discussed/mentioned in Piercing the darkness: undercover with vampires in America today. Theatre World 1993-1994 By John Willis, the The Dramatists Guild quarterly, Volume 34, Theater week, Volume 8, Issues 9-21, and the French publication L'espresso, Volume 39, Issues 36-43.4meter4 (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per 4meter4 I believe that cited mentions place subject over the notability threshold. (talk). Evalpor (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see no substantial coverage in WP:RS in the article at present, just a few mentions in directories and play listings. Several of the sources currently in the article are definitely not reliable sources and I have tagged them as such. Please point out where this article meets the criteria of WP:CREATIVE and / or WP:NMUSIC. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be enough sources to establish notability. 108.125.251.218 (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete To address 4meter4's sources in turn:
 * a) NYT 1 - Titled PLAYING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD: CLINTON is too WP:LOCAL and doesn't cover him in any depth at all.
 * b) NYT 2 - Has Halloween listings, again not the depth of coverage required.
 * c) Piercing the darkness: undercover with vampires in America today - not discussion, just mentions. We can verify he runs the Vampyr Theatre but nothing more.
 * d) Theatre World 1993-1994 By John Willis lists itself as a "statistical and pictorial record" and the snippet view of an earlier issue would suggest it just lists information and does not provide significant indepth coverage.
 * e) [The Dramatists Guild quarterly, Volume 34] - again, just a list.
 * f) Theater week, Volume 8, Issues 9-21 - One trivial mention.
 * g) L'espresso, Volume 39, Issues 36-43 is unclear, but one mention of his surname in at least [155 pages] would not be in depth coverage.
 * He clearly exists, but he has not done enough to establish WP:Notability for wikipedia. Bigger digger (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  21:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Bigger digger has convincingly demonstrated that the sourcing is not sufficient. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the three page biography in Katherine Ramsland's book is sufficient as a reliable source for notability. I don't think the person who dismissed it as "mere mention" actually read it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah, good point, I could only see the snippet view, this version verifies there are 3 pages where his name is mentioned, but can you explain how these 3 pages mean he passes WP:CREATIVE, or even WP:BASIC? Bigger digger (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Sources"? This book is one source. And you're quoting WP:GNG, which is second in the queue behind WP:PEOPLE for the notability of, well, people. Bigger digger (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment No way that is a biography! It is just some mentions of Sokol in a book on the vampire scene. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is what a biography is, a bunch of mentions about a person, all those words strung together, just like a biography of Abraham Lincoln, except Sokol gets three pages and Lincoln gets them by the tens of thousands. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale: It is a BLP. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Responding to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), a brief interview in a book on vampires does not equate to "substantial coverage" of the subject, Tony Sokol. All we learn from these three pages is that Sokol founded a theatre company, which has produced a few shows and has himself been a guest, with about twenty other people, on the Jona Rivers show.  It appears that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) really does not understand the concept of notability as expressed in WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE which are the standards that this article must be measured against. None of those arguing keep here have addressed this lack of notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And adding unreliable sources such as Facebook is just making this look like a desperate attempt to keep this artcile. For what reason? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks, please. Argue against my words, not against me personally. Using Sokol's biography from his Facebook page is allowed. If it isn't, please cut and paste the rule that disallows it. I think you are confusing references used for notability and references used for verifiability. Certainly he is the best authority on the topic of himself for verifiability unless proved otherwise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia states: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" (original emphasis) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if you mis-interpreted my post as a personal attack and am puzzled as to what in there was considered to be such. As you say, the facebook reference does nothing to establish notability, neither does the mention by Ramsland, no more than the bio summary given by any journalist in an interview. We are looking for substantial coverage of the article subject and there just is not anything which has been produced so far. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:31, 15 September 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.