Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Schaller

:{{la|Kevin Schaller}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Schaller Stats])

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

Non-notable magician. While there are lots of links to be found about this guy, they all appear to be self-promotion. Nothing independent to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The links posted in references are indepedent. For example; the website listed with his products is the biggest magic shop world wide and not run / moderated by Kevin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicContinental (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Links posted actually aren't independent. While Schaller does not control or moderate All About Magicians, he surely wrote his own biography for that site, where he sells his wares. Just because someone sells their goods at a magic shop, that doesn't make them a notable magician. The other sources are equally not independent: a video on Vimeo (posted by the subject himself) of a radio interview (not indicating which radio station or program broadcast the interview), and DVDs produced by the subject himself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You may be right about this All About Magicians website, I dont actually know. However I can tell you that not everyone can sell magic at magic shops and the DVDs are not produced by the subject himself, but by popular magic companies. (They may not be known outside of magic, but if you are a magician you will know about their popularity, if not research will proof. (i.e. Full52 Magic Productions) Just had to add this to this discussion; the final decision is still up to you - the administrators.

178.4.242.118 (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

---

• Weak delete - It is entirely possible that this individual is important, but the criteria is not importance or even creativity... it is whether he has done something that third party sources have written about, and none are cited. Even his IMDB profile lists only one production and it was one that he wrote himself. Other people have to write about him for the subject to be considered notable. In the future, he may be notable, but just not now. The article borders on self-promotion. Nickmalik (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

---

::@Nickmalik: You wrote "IMDB profile lists only one production and it was one that he wrote himself". Makes no sense; Tom Six i.e. has written the movie "Human Centipede" himself and it is still notable. Only because someone wrote something himself does not make it irrelevant; someone always has to offer an idea and write it before it goes into production.178.4.253.229 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

:::Unsigned authors do not normally participate in an AfD discussion. Please log in prior to participation.

:::Additionally, the discussion is not about whether an idea is relevant or not. His ideas may be interesting yet not notable. The discussion is about whether he is notable. There are specific criteria in Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. There needs to be evidence not of his work, but of the impact that his work has had on other people. The film is not notable in itself and the fact that he wrote the film and performed in it does not make the subject notable. For criteria of a notable film, see Wikipedia Film Notability Guidelines. Please review those criteria and comment on the basis of them. But it's still a delete in my opinion. Nickmalik (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2014 (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.