Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Purdy

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. Consensus that the sources cited in the article are sufficient to demonstrate notability. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Purdy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not my field, but the subject appears to be primarily a musician, and clearly does not meet the relevant guidelines. Theonly reliable sourcesseemsto be a note in Variety DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm the creator of the original article, but I think that this use of Vice as a source is reliable. From what I can see at WP:RSP, there is no consensus on Vice as a source, but for things outside of world politics and current events it is deemed reliable. I'd also like to point out that the articles in Nicki Swift and The Badger Herald (which in my opinion are both reasonably reliable) at least provide considerable sigcov. It should not be left out in this discussion that Purdy is also a Youtuber with 3M+ subscribers, which is nothing to scoff at even if it doesn't show traditional notability. AviationFreak💬 03:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree there's not much from a music angle but as a social media personality it meets General notability with requisite numbers of reliable cited sources. Re: Vice, yes it can be iffy and does make itself available for branding/promotional purposes so it's tough to make a blanket assessment of its reliability because a good percentage of what they put out is legit. IMO, VICE articles as sources should be gauged on a case by case basis, especially with musicians. This one is fairly in-depth by a staff writer, so it passes, IMO. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.