Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harrison Greenbaum (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Greenbaum

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

Previously deleted as an article about a non-notable comic. This article does contain additional references, but nothing to meet WP:RS. Comedy Central, Comic's Comic, and NY Times information are blogs; most of the sources are only cursory mentions, quotes, etc., and a few of the links are press releases and/or dead links. Nothing to show that the subject has gained notability since the previous deletion discussion, and nothing to indicate that the subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Kinu - I believe the article meets WP:RS on at least four grounds. Firstly, he is clearly a contributor to MAD Magazine (there is a link showing that his work has been published in the magazine multiple times). Secondly, there is ample evidence that he was a co-host of the ball drop in Times Square, which is definitely a notable accomplishment. Thirdly, there are no print magazines dedicated to stand-up, so the best one can find are industry-standard comedy blogs, of which Comedy Central Insider (the official blog of the comedy channel, Comedy Central) and Comic'c Comic (an official part of Comedy.com) are both. Fourthly, as mentioned in the article and confirmed on his website, Harrison has performed in over 700 shows in 2009; clearly, he is a notable comic, having performed in that many shows. Strong keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by No1CurlingFan (talk • contribs) 10:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, many of the links are dead. For example, the one used as a citation for the MAD Magazine note is a 404 error. Likewise, I contest the assertion that there are no more reliable sources about comedy out there; for example, an article on comedycentral.com or in the New York Times arts section would be reliable, but blogs don't usually meet WP:RS. Also, WP:BIO doesn't necessary state that notability can be determined by number of shows; besides, if indeed he is notable because of that, then a WP:RS should report it first. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, saying "many of the links are dead" when only 2 out of 11 links are is an exaggeration. However, both of those links were right, just missing one letter (the MAD Magazine link ended in ".ht" instead of ".htm" and the Times Square press release ended in ".htm" instead of ".html"). I fixed both of these minor errors and now none of the links are dead. The MAD Contributor list reference (now with fixed link) makes a strong case to Greenbaum's notability. Furthermore, I added an additional citation - an interview in the print addition of amNew York (with link to a .pdf version) - in which the interviewer notes some of Greenbaum's accomplishments, including being a writer for MAD Magazine. Thus, Greenbaum's notability is verifiable on at least two accounts: the now-active link pointing to Greenbaum's contribution to MAD Magazine and the print interview in a major New York newspaper listing some of Greenbaum's accomplishments. Also, Comedy Central is a TV channel. It only publishes articles through the Comedy Central Insider, its official blog, so an article on Comedy Central Insider IS an "'article' on comedycentral.com (it would be like saying that an article on Hulu's official blog is not reliable, only an article on Hulu.com - that doesn't actually make sense).No1CurlingFan (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)No1CurlingFan[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not casting a vote one way or another at this point, however I want to point out that one of the nominator's policy arguments is incorrect in my view. The policy on blogs as sources for BLPs(WP:BLPSPS) is not a blanket prohibition on anything rather referred to as a blog or formatted like a blog. Rather, it's restriction against self-published blogs. It's not that blogs are viewed as evil by their very nature. Rather, it's that the reliability of self-published blogs can be dubious because of the lack of editorial/institutional oversight. So by it's very nature, a blog maintained by the New York Times would be treated like a self-published blog. --JamesAM (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2010 (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.