Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Dreyer

: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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

=[[Kevin Dreyer]]=

:{{la|Kevin Dreyer}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Dreyer Stats])

:({{Find sources|Kevin Dreyer}})

I'm having a hard time finding more reliable sources that do more than merely mention Dreyer. THe majority of these sources are YouTUbe and primary. Appears to fail GNG to me. SarahStierch (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  • This article points to seven different The New York Times reviews, a Village Voice review and two other newspapers. In the Dance world, the New York Times review is extremely notable, showing stature in one's field, and helps to fulfill the wiki criterion for notability. A closer look at the sources does reveal a plethora of youtube hits, a sign of notability and breadth of productivity. The article is comprehensive and exhaustive in its research of all the ways the lighting is represented. In the dance world, all that exists on the internet is a link to a review and possibly a youtube link. There are no academic journals to read 'about' dance lighting, and not much recognition to dance reconstruction, much less about dance lighting reconstruction. It is ephemoral. All that exists is perhaps a picture, a video and maybe a few lines in a review. Dreyer teaches other lighting designers in his own field, noted in two internet links to USITT, The United States Institute for Theatre Technology in 2009 and 2010. Leaders in their fields fulfill a wiki notability criterion. Dreyer is an international artist, having designed in both North and South America, Europe, and Asia, as noted in the article. The breadth of this career also satisfies a wiki criterion for notability. Donalds (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • KeepThe New York Times reference, along with the multitude of other references which mention him in passing, should be enough to establish notability. The cites show his work with the Joffrey, which is the absolute pinnacle of the ballet world. Supporting the authors comments as to the quality of the references, excepting the YouTube ones. I count 5 references to respected newspapers, should be more than enough to meet WP:GNG. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Which New York Times reference? All of the ones I see are about the shows, not about Dreyer. They are mentions like, "Under Kevin Dreyer's beautiful lighting..." which don't seem to support the qualifications for BLP. Saying things like, "Dreyer's lighting designs have been reviewed in The New York Times on seven separate occasions" is not true to the source when it is more like— Dreyer has been mentioned in the reviews of many great shows. There are also a great deal of primary references like from the theaters themselves (and the Youtube links), it would be nice if they were cleaned up and trimmed down. heather walls (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. As well as the many reviews that mention him briefly, there exists a reliably published article that is entirely about his lighting, and nearly 1000 words long, so Donalds' claim that "all that exists is a picture, a video, and a few lines in a review" is not actually true in this case. {{citation|title=Lighting a Christmas Classic|newspaper=Stage Directions|date=December 1, 2004|last=Mauro|first=Lucia|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-760358621.html|format=subscription required}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the article, David. Also, what is BLP?Donalds (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's Wikipedia jargon for a "biography of a living person". The standards for articles about that sort of subject are stricter than for other subjects. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep -- it's hard to be notable as an LD, but the many shorter reviews (7 productions in the NY Times, which Gtwfan52 rightly notes is the most important place to get reviews in the US theater world) plus David's find of the larger article, the association with Joffrey, the academic position, all point to a pass of WP:PROF. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. I guess I never actually expressed an opinion above but I think the sourcing is good enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2012 (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.