Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riley Schillaci

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. Note that the words local and regional don't appear in WP:N and WP:RS at all. So back and forth assertions with regard to that don't add up to much (in either direction, I suppose). Significance vs. Mention is, of course, but inspecting the sources this doesn't appear to be a case of just mentions. WilyD 08:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Schillaci

Riley Schillaci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appeared on a talent show; associated with notable acts; still seems to me to fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Local paper squibs do not add up to notability, in my interpretation. Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are all local rags, and the last one (The Morning Call) is triggered by the America's Got Talent appearance (not really "in passing"). I love this quote: "Saturday, as we all know, is World Sword Swallower's Awareness Day, and Schillaci plans on participating." For some reason, I must not be part of "we" in "we all know". Still, wouldn't surprise me if the article is kept. We have other similar articles that we all have to swallow.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, was it really "triggered" by AGT? It was written a year after her AGT appearance. Futhermore, the point of that article—the reason it was written—was to discuss Schillaci and her participation in the World Sword Swallower's Awareness Day. Of course, neither am I aware that the event took place on that one Saturday, but a four-word phrase should not discount the article entirely. Goodvac (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The article was edited to be brief, and included references. Someone decided that the resume and references were not needed, and deleted them. If you are going to delete Riley Schillaci, they you should delete Dan Meyer as well. The comment "as well all know is international sword swallowers day, was sarcasm on the writer's behalf. Also Schillaci was one of the famed Kodak Babies of the 80's, which is culturally relevant, the pictures were displayed around the world, as well as used on baby products. Many pediatricians' offices still have the panorama hanging on their wall.
  • "Meyer is also internationally recognized as the world's foremost authority in the field of sword swallowing as an award-winning author [1], Ig Nobel Prize winning Laureate [2], science lecturer, and President of the Sword Swallowers Association International (SSAI)." I think this sentence alone shows why Dan Meyer deserves his wikipedia page. There is a bit of difference between his resume and the resume of the subject. I don't see any cultural significance to the subject. It was written by the subject herself as a tool for self promotion only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.94.100 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any media coverage that Schillaci got was actually due to campaigning by her PR Representative, Laura Baughman. Baughman and Schillaci approached local news outlets both before and after America's Got Talent. Riley was getting press coverage well before AGT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNukes (talk • contribs) 01:08, 26 August 2012 — JNukes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
—Northamerica1000(talk) 01:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know Schillaci's internet troll/stalker personally. He has a vendetta against her for only Eris knows why. I can verify that this controversy did seem to start after he edited the article to be libelous. In doing so, he did break the laws of slander and libel regarding a public figure, in many states. (even if it only a local public figure). I say Schillaci should remain present on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeroloki (talk • contribs) 01:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC) — Xeroloki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Essentially a resume with nothing else to verify; the person "worked on" but wasn't a "member of" the other things listed there. I hung out with Dave Chappelle for a few hours a few weeks ago but can I call him my friend? No! More like WP:SPIP. Its just association that the editors are reaching for, nothing more: WP:NTEMP. WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E guidelines, and primarily the one event on the show WP:NPF WP:IRS. Three core principles of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR aren't clearly met here, by WP:NRVE. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are reciting policies without applying them to this AfD. Please offer something beyond argument by assertion. Goodvac (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It fails per nomination. I hope that is clear as to my primary reason for delete. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Always fall back on that when you can't come up with a reason, eh? Goodvac (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No...because the nomination is the valid reason in this case, as is with many. "Schillaci the Sword-swallower" just isn't generally notable. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, if you had worked with or opened up for Dave Chapel, that WOULD be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNukes (talk • contribs) 16:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've restored the recently A7 deleted history, under similar logic to why such is done for DRV debates. This will allow anyone voting here to have a fuller idea of the history of this article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't understand. There was an issue with the relevance of Riley Schillaci last year, and after providing sources and link, everything was OK. What changed now? Can someone please provide me with a simplified version of the guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNukes (talk • contribs) 05:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your account was recently created, yet you are familiar with things that happened a year ago. What was the name of your previous account?
      Please respond to my comment above. Goodvac (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I stated when I recently nominated this article for speedy (as a promo page), this article has several issues, including a lack of any apparent notability (beyond an appearance on AGT and some local/regional appearances, which does not constitute WP:N as I understand it), and WP:COI and WP:OWNERSHIP issues on the part of the article's creator and major contributor, Rschilla (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), who appears to be the article's subject, and as far as I can tell from the user's edit history, is a WP:SPA to promote the subject of this article. I have been uninvolved with any of this until a couple days ago, when I nom'ed the speedy. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither COI nor ownership issues are justification for deletion.
      Notability is established by the GNG, links for which I have laid out above. Goodvac (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would not suggest that COI or OWNership are criteria for deletion per se, but they (along with lack of WP:NOTABILITY) go toward indicating a WP:PROMOTION page. I don't doubt the subject is quite talented, but this is about the article, not the subject. My basic reason for nominating speedy and for deletion here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool. And none of the editors here proposing deletion have to prove lack of notability. The onus of proof lies with the article itself to establish notability. Judging from what I have been able to turn up on the internet, it can't, because notability is not temporary or regional. This article, from its first edit, has been textbook WP:SPIP, and that is why it is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In a discussion of COI at AfD, the only thing that matters is the neutrality of the article text. If it is neutral, which it is in this case, the intention to promote is irrelevant at AfD. Speculation on the motives of the creators is a distraction from the crux of the matter—notability. You contend that notability is not temporary, when I clearly laid out above that Schillaci receives coverage spanning multiple years. You also contend that notability is not regional, but the linked guideline never mentions "regional". Goodvac (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify one thing. The Rschilla account has admitted to being the subject's "PR agent", but not to being the subject herself. This does not make Rschilla's editing the article less of a COI situation, but I wanted to clarify just what has been claimed by the account. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTEMP: Notability is not temporary or regional, and one notable appearance (such as on AGT) does not constitute WP:NOTABILITY. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are more than enough. Doesn't matter if they are local sources (which not all are by the way), they go into solid detail. You'll note that WP:N doesn't say anything about regional. And the fact that notability isn't temporary means that if the subject was ever notable she is still now. Could you explain why you think otherwise? This seems really open-and-shut. She meets the letter of WP:N by a wide margin indeed. Hobit (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources I have seen indicate any reason to believe that anyone outside of New York has ever heard of the subject, other than her one appearance on America's Got Talent, placing this article in the territory of WP:1E. The guidance at 1E advises a redirect in such cases as this one, so Riley Schillaci should redirect to America's Got Talent (season 6). What I mean about not being regional is that Gandhi, for instance, is notable because he is widely known world-wide, not just in Gujarat, and even if he had never left India he would still be widely known for the extent of his influence on international politics and nonviolent civil disobedience. People who had never left California in their lives knew of him and his influence back in the 1960s. Our swordswallower, on the other hand, made an appearance once on a reality TV elimination show and some local appearances in New York (which the rest of the world never heard a word about). Per WP:NOTTEMP: A single event that receives coverage only for a short period of time and never again is usually not notable. I don't think it means what you think it means. There is very scant secondary source material about her in reliable sources that are independent of herself and her publicist, and even this article itself is not independent of herself and her publicist. It is WP:SPIP pure and simple. By the way, whether or not "she" meets the letter of WP:N, the article fails WP:N because notability (in the sense of inclusion in Wikipedia) is not established in the article. Please remember that this AfD discussion is about the article, not the subject, who I think we can all agree is quite talented and probably a lovely person. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only one talking about her talent, so don't patronize me with that admonition.
Where does it say a subject must be known "world-wide" to be notable? Who is arguing that Schillaci is known only for her AGT appearance? My rationale explains that that is evidently not the case. Please do not employ further straw man arguments and place words in others' mouths. Goodvac (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say that you said anything? I was responding to Hobit's comments. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 06:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that you were speaking generally about the arguments of the keep opinions. If I was mistaken, I apologize. But you did misrepresent Hobit's position. Goodvac (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the thing about article vs. subject was in direct response to something Hobit said above. I didn't know I was representing anyone's position other than my own, other than his assertion that WP:NOTTEMP implies permanence of notability even if coverage is temporary. (In Hobit's exact words: the fact that notability isn't temporary means that if the subject was ever notable she is still now.) I don't think I misrepresented it. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 06:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[H]is assertion that WP:NOTTEMP implies permanence of notability even if coverage is temporary. The last five words of this sentence is a blatant distortion of Hobit's statements. Nowhere has he stated that the coverage is temporary. He stated that the notability was not temporary. Assertions about temporary coverage were debunked above when I demonstrated that the sources span multiple years, beginning in 2007 and continuing this year.

You are fond of referencing WP:NOTTEMP in your arguments. I will quote the section in full:

Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time re-assessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered.
In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.

Please explain where this discusses "Notability is not temporary or regional".
You also repeatedly appeal to the AGT appearance to say the article violates WP:BLP1E. This is demonstrably false because her AGT appearance was during season 6 (May 31, 2011 – September 14, 2011). She received coverage in 2007 and 2008, and those sources have nothing to do with her AGT appearance. She received coverage in 2012, where one source mentioned AGT in passing and the other never mentioned it. To base deletion on BLP1E because of her AGT appearance even though she was notable before that is a misapplication of BLP1E. Goodvac (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read her bio, on the web page (which appears to be down right now), you would see that Schillaci has worked with Ripley's Believe it or Not TORONTO, and lived in Allentown Pa for a number of years, where she performed at Burlesque festivals, Renaissance festivals, as well as clubs. As a Schillaci fan, I can tell you that she id most definitely known outside of PA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNukes (talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 August 2012

Arbitrary section break

  • Keep - Looking through the sources, she appears to easily meet notability requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I cannot see how she meets either WP:ARTIST or WP:ENT. She doesn't inherit her notability from a show she once appeared on. WP:BIO says, A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I see coverage, yes, but significant coverage is probably a ways off. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • She doesn't have to meet WP:ARTIST or WP:ENT—she just has to meet the GNG. Again, AGT is nothing to do with her notability. My analysis above demonstrates that she was notable before her appearance on the show, and the in-depth coverage of her focuses on her not as a contestant on the show but as an artist. Goodvac (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that's where the problem exists - the article "focuses on her [...] as an artist" but we are being asked to consider her notability not on the basis of WP:ARTIST but on the basis of WP:GNG (as you say) because she, though described as an artist, fails WP:ARTIST.
As such, my view was that the question comes down to our interpretation of whether or not the coverage she has received as an individual can be considered "significant" or not (because she doesn't inherit notability). Remember, "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion". Having had a look at the sources I was on the fence and settled on weak delete. But it was weak for a reason - my interpretation is exactly that and others will have a different interpretation (as you seem to have). That's the beauty of the WP:CONSENSUS system. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, but she is being referred to as an "artist" and I would think the natural path for considering the notability of an "artist" would be to first assess the article against WP:ARTIST. If the article passed WP:ARTIST then it would likely put the question of notability beyond doubt. The fact that the article doesn't simply means we revert to the primary WP:GNG, or in the case of BLPs, WP:BIO which references WP:GNG. It doesn't really matter which I consider first and which I consider second - I don't believe it quite meets the criteria for WP:GNG and specified this in my original comment (by citing WP:BIO). Stalwart111 (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Side note) - both User:JNukes and User:Rschilla seem suspiciously close to the subject of the article who performs as both Riley Schillaci and Riley Nukes[1]; both of them have only ever contributed to this article and my suggestion is that there might be a bit of WP:SOC'ing going on. You were right to be suspicious (your comments above). But COI, no matter how blatant, does not make a subject non-notable. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rschilla has, at least once, referred to him/her-self as Riley's "PR agent". So in that case, at least, it's not a matter of suspicion. The COI has been flat-out admitted. (The admission was in a legal threat mistakenly placed on my talk page, then removed a few minutes later. The threat was obviously intended for Riley's troll, not me. I left a note on Rschilla's talk about not making legal threats, and consider that part of the issue closed. But the post also contained the COI admission.) - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having had more of a look, I think they might be. Sorry, but arguments about notability aside, I don't believe for a second that a part-time amateur entertainer has his or her own agent. How many legitimate agents use their client's name (as a username) and email address (as he has done)? How many entertainers perform using their own name and then occasionally that of their agent? I strongly suspect (and think it far more likely) that the subject of this article created Rschilla and used the profile to create this article, then used it to make that pseudo-legal threat (while claiming to be Johnny Nukes, her "agent"). I think she knew that making such a threat about her own article would have made her look amateurish and would have rung COI alarm bells immediately. When the threat didn't work, JNukes was created to continue the campaign here.
I'm almost certain that a checkuser search would reveal they are one in the same person. Her Facebook page lists the email address referenced in your pre/link as her own and the page makes no reference to an agent in any context. I cannot find any reference to a "Johnny Nukes" as an agent of any sort, in any context or even as a person in any way linked to the subject. My suspicion is that "Johnny Nukes" does not exist and that the subject created this article, heavily edited this article, made threats against people editing the article (claiming to be someone else) and then opposed the deletion of the article at this AfD (with a new username). I would also suggest User:Xeroloki fits in there somewhere - their only contribution has been vandalism, an edit to the subject article and a Keep contribution here (which was substantially a carbon-copy of part of the legal threat made by Rschilla). Stalwart111 (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To your question; sure, happy to... (Again, this is about building consensus - I didn't come here for the express purpose of deleting an article. I'm happy to be convinced. I read the article and the sources and the historical AFD discussion and came to a conclusion.)
Reference 1 is simply a list of sword swallowing artists and isn't coverage of the subject. That's an easy one.
My interpretation was that references 3, 4 and 6 (which appeared after her appearance on AGT, all within days of each other) were likely prompted by her appearance on AGT or at least efforts on the part of an agent to to do post-appearance promo after AGT or pre-appearance promo ahead of Sword Swallower's Day - two of them reference AGT specifically. My conclusion was that coverage prompted by AGT or Sword Swallower's Day was getting a little too close to WP:INHERIT. While they constitute coverage of her, without her appearance on AGT she wouldn't have received the coverage. That said, the same arguments can be put in relation to most actors and the films they are in (at what point does the notability of the artist match that of the film to then justify a stand-alone article?) which is where my consideration of WP:ARTIST and WP:ENT came in. It's a line-ball call, sure, but that was the call I made.
2 and 5 are historical and while notability is not temporary (as has been highlighted), these two articles alone (considered at a point before her appearance on AGT) would not have been enough to constitute significant coverage.
Notability of the article, then, relies on the combination of historical minor coverage and newer arguably significant (but at least partially inherited) coverage. On balance, my conclusion was that the references provided did not constitute significant coverage to substantiate the notability of the subject.
Beyond the existing references I would also argue that there is a case to be made that the subject meets the criteria of WP:BLP1E - other than in the period following her appearance on AGT, the subject has received no significant coverage. Ongoing significant coverage not linked with her AGT appearance could allow the subject to meet notability criteria in the future, in which case it may be that the current article was simply created too soon. As it stands, at present and based on my interpretation as detailed above, I came to the conclusion that the article should be deleted. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Just for clarity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
    I agree with you that reference 1 provides no coverage. References 3, 4, and 6 were not within days of each other or near her AGT appearance during season 6 (May 31, 2011 – September 14, 2011) and are far from being "prompted" by it. Reference 3 (February 24, 2012) mentions her AGT appearance as an introduction—to express surprise at the judges' rejection of her act and segue into Schillaci's career. It briefly discusses Sword Swallower's Day (three paragraphs) in relation to Schillaci, and the rest examines the following: how she came to practice sword swallowing, her parents' opinions about her career, her other acts, and her future as a sword swallower. Both AGT and Sword Swallower's Day are discussed marginally, with the main focus on Schillaci. Reference 4 (March 31, 2012, a month later) does not mention AGT at all. The information overlaps with reference 3, but it explains why she branched off to other acts and the name of her show. Reference 6 (February 7, 2012) adds some additional details about her acts and briefly notes her participation at Sword Swallower's Day. Taken as a whole, these references provide significant coverage of Schillaci without hinging on her appearance on AGT or Sword Swallower's Day.
    The "historical" references (2 and 5) do indeed constitute significant coverage. Reference 2 discusses Schillaci's other talents and the effect of sword swallowing on her. Reference 5 notes her day jobs and how pre-show routine. Of course, these references overlap with each other and with references 3, 4, and 6, but taken altogether, they add up to significant coverage per WP:BASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability").
    I found another article predating her AGT appearance that provides additional coverage—"Sharpening their skills" (Google Cache) from Times News (June 12, 2010). Although it also discusses her partner, the article provides ample coverage of Schillaci, including her college education and job history. Again, there is overlap with the other sources, but taken together, they add up. She also was interviewed by Rochester Insider (cover of that issue on Flickr), but I have not been able to find the article online. Goodvac (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you listed those references in the order to which I was referring (the same as in the article) - sorry, should have made that clearer. Just a quick one - that link you provided isn't working. Thought you might like to have a crack at fixing it before anyone responds. Only fair that we should all be considering things on equally. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First, yes that cached link worked. Second, I suggested from the beginning that I was on the fence and so could be convinced and you've convinced me. I still don't believe the subject inherits notability from her AGT appearance and regardless of timeline I still believe one was prompted by the other (she would have known, I contend, that having filmed on x day, she could expect to appear on y day, some time later and the coverage was part of a little AGT-related PR blitz).
Regardless, while I felt I could remain on the fence about 2 small-paper articles as "significant coverage" (prior to AGT), 3 or possibly 4 independent sources (all prior to AGT) is enough to get me off the fence. I must say, I thoroughly enjoy being convinced when, despite a willingness to be, I really didn't think I could be.
I still have major concerns about some fairly serious sock-puppetry, especially in relation to this AfD which, like all AfDs, includes the note, "be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust", which appears above every edit window every time you edit. However, as I said earlier, COI or sock-puppetry (no matter how blatant) by editors does not impact on WP:N or WP:GNG and should not have an impact on the final consensus.
Finally; Goodvac, thank you for assuming good faith from the beginning and for playing the ball rather than the man. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So thanks to this heated debate, I guess people now definitely know who Riley Schillaci is, outside of NYS. And I stand corrected, she did not work in Toronto, it was the Ripley's at Niagara Falls ON. The significance of the person should not be in question. We should be more concerned with making sure that the facts contained in the entry are accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.169.217 (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, a few Wikipedia editors now know she exists but their new knowledge of her would still constitute original research. The notability of the subject is in question, whether editors like it or not, thus the AfD nomination. In that context and given that this is a consensus discussion, I'm sure everyone here would be happy to consider any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that you think supports the case for the article being kept. (Also, I cleaned up your comment so others could respond). Stalwart111 (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been busy preparing to go out of town, and will leave in a little while, so I may not be able to have any further involvement here, but I think it has been a pretty good discussion for the most part, and thank you Stalwart and Goodvac for your contributions to the discussion. I could be convinced to keep if there is anything here beyond WP:SPIP, I just haven't seen the evidence of anything I would consider notable in an encyclopedic context. My initial concern was the blatant self-promotion and stuffing of the article with WP:OR (oh, yes and then there were some secondary sources linked at the bottom of the article, but not placed as inline citations), and though I could be convinced there is significant coverage out there, I still have some concern over WP:V. After the speedy delete failed, I tried to do a quick clean-up and couldn't find anything that wasn't SPIP or OR. Can we please try to get some citations to reliable secondary sources in the body of the article, to sort out the OR/self-promotion from verifiable, encyclopedic information? If there is enough encyclopedic material cited to reliable secondary sources, then I would support keeping, if not then I'd say it's all snow. I'd help out with this effort if not for my activities IRL, but thank you all for your efforts. Cheers. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 14:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused a little at your invocation of WP:SNOW. This debate looks to be far, far from a WP:SNOW situation to me, with several people on each side, and neither side snowballing the other. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to source the article. Goodvac (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not trust local coverage of a local performer to be reliable, rather than just PR. Appearance of AGT or any similar show is not by itself notability, as can be seen by looking at the articles on the seasons of the show: very few have been considered notable here. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is arguing for Schillaci's notability because of her AGT appearance, so that is a non-issue.
      WP:RS does not exclude local sources from being reliable, and to speculate on the PR activity of the subject is beyond the scope of AfD. Goodvac (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added referenced information I found through Google news archive search as well as looking at the list of press coverage she has on her official website at [2]. Dream Focus 10:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sword swallowers aren't automatically notable IRWolfie- (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. A-list actors tend to be automatically notable, but definitely not sword swallowers. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lot of information about her at [3], not just passing mention, and it says there are only about a hundred sword swallowers in the world. Others have already pointed to reliable sources which cover her. Dream Focus 10:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG (also, I cleaned up the article.[4]):
  • significant coverage: Tori Uthe (January 13, 2008). "Don't try this at home, boys and girls. Sword swallowing 'extremely difficult and dangerous'". The Springfield State Journal-Register. p. 23. Retrieved August 28, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
  • significant coverage: Seth Voorhees (February 28, 2008). "Her Hobby's Hard To Swallow". YNN Rochester. Retrieved August 28, 2012.
  • significant coverage: Al Zagofsky (June 12, 2010). "Hard economic times led couple to ... gulp ... a strange profession". Erie Times-News. Retrieved August 28, 2012.
  • coverage: Jodi Duckett (October 28, 2010). "Special tricks and treats for Hallo-weekend". The Morning Call. p. 4. Retrieved August 28, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
  • Schillaci letter to the editor: Riley Schillaci (October 18, 2011). "Allentown protesters don't deserve insults". The Morning Call. p. A14. Retrieved August 28, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
  • significant coverage: Melanie Falcon (February 7, 2012). "Woman with unique talent finds rising stardom easy to swallow". WFMZ-TV. Retrieved August 28, 2012.
  • significant coverage: Steve Siegel (February 24, 2012). "Cutting-Edge Entertainment. Allentown woman is one of few professional female sword swallowers in the world". The Morning Call. p. D1. Retrieved August 28, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
  • significant coverage: Walter Perez (April 1, 2012). "Allentown woman makes a living swallowing swords". The Morning Call. Retrieved August 28, 2012.
-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are the "Local paper squibs" mentioned by the nom. They are of dubious reliability. for example I doubt the statement in the article that she is "one of few" female sword swallowers, it looks like something the newspaper just added to make things sound more unusual/exciting. Writing letters to newspapers doesn't make someone notable, and they are primary sources, and do not help with significant coverage in secondary sources, which is GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. See WP:NOTTRUTH. Doesn't matter if you doubt something, if a newspaper says it, that's it. And these aren't some small town papers with a few dozen hicks reading it. The newspapers aren't just publishing letters, they are writing editorials about something of interest to people, often going to events to take pictures of her performing to include in their articles. Dream Focus 13:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG does not exclude "local" sources whatsoever. Why would it? If this were the case, then only the utmostly "most popular" people (according to mass media) would be allowed to have Wikipedia articles, because the most popular people are hyped the most in infotainment-style mass media nowadays, and receive the highest levels of coverage. All of these sources simply serve to further confirm that this person clearly passes WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:24, 2 September 2012 (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.