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 delete. The issue in this AfD is notability. Opinions are roughly equally divided: The "keep" side thinks that the coverage of his career as a stage magician and of the allegations of criminal conduct establish notability. The "delete" side thinks that the career coverage is too thin for notability and the crime coverage is a BLP1E matter. These are both valid approaches to the issue, and as such, we have no consensus here.
Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, "discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete". I think that is plausible that Domag is the subject. I also think the subject is not a public figure as this term is used in US free speech law: neither being a stage magician (a routine trade) nor being an alleged sex offender make somebody particularly involved in public affairs. As such, the requirements for BLPREQUESTDELETE are met.
Which means that I need to decide whether I should exercise the discretion allowed by that policy to delete the article. I am doing so because I do not think that this article has any particular value to our readership: both stage magicians and alleged sex offenders are very common across the world (WP:MILL), which makes the subject a person of, in my view, very little interest to readers of an encyclopedia. Routine crimes and criminals are better covered by the news media, not by encyclopedias (WP:NOTNEWS). Sandstein 09:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Domag alleges to be the subject of this article and has actively edited this page since 2008. On the article talk page he requested this article be deleted, which is likely due to WP:BLPCRIME issue which he has been unsuccessful in removing from the page. As a result of himself self-identifying, his edits have resulted in a COI/N.
@JalenFolf: attempted a CSD G6, which was objected to by @Mikehawk10: who suggested this goes to AfD.
The BLPCRIME material was removed because he is a non-public figure and has not yet been convicted of any crime, consistent with policy. The BLPCRIME information was re-introduced into the article by an admin because it was discovered (after this AfD was proposed) that he was actually convicted of this crime. (Updated: 18:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC))
However, this situation has brought this article to attention, and it seems like it might fail WP:GNG, especially with the allegations removed. The median number of page views is only 1 per day when you exclude both when this allegation was posted and the current round of edits this month.
I am bringing this to AfD in good faith on behalf of the user and have a neutral position regarding the outcome of this discussion. I have no personal knowledge of this user, nor any prior history with this article. And felt it would be more efficient for the community to have an experienced user present more of the facts than if the subject himself brought a likely malformed and biased AfD forward. TiggerJay(talk) 23:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom. Best Regards.---✨LazyManiik✨ 02:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nom is neutral... what does per nom mean?— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Neutral per nom" doesn't have the same ring to it, unfortunately. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 03:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This individual passes WP:BASIC. There are multiple reliable sources that describe the subject in-depth. These include:
A 2006 Boston Globe piece covers a particular performance of his in-depth. It also states that Oliver is a regular performer on Broadway and that he had gained reviews from NBC News's Matt Lauer;
A nine-page cover story in the January 2014 edition of Magic Magazine that focused on his double lung transplant (brief summary available here);
I'm also seeing plenty of sources that would describe him as a high-profile individual. This 2014 Boston Globe piece describes Oliver as a very famous magician's magician. A 2015 Capital Gazette piece describes Oliver as a renowned magician. I can even find coverage of a benefit magic show made to support Oliver's double lung transfer. He seems to have been a high-profile individual while performing, at the very least, and I do not see a real reason to remove negative information in his article when it is well-sourced and presented neutrally. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The simple usage of terms like "famous" or "renowed" is little more than WP:PEACOCK "instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it." Although since those articles are behind paywalls, I cannot see if there is such subjective information. I'll leave that to you to appropriately consider. TiggerJay(talk) 06:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify the criteria beyond WP:BASIC includes WP:ENT or if you prefer WP:ARTIST which is essentially the same. TiggerJay(talk) 06:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's anywhere near a reasonable reading of the guideline. Per WP:BASIC, People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below (emphasis added). Those additional criteria include both WP:ENT and WP:ARTIST; WP:BASIC is more or less GNG but just tailored towards biographies—if you meet it, you're presumed to be a notable individual. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I would !vote keep in the absence of a request from the subject, per sources of Mikehawk10. However, I think notability is marginal enough that we can honor a request from the subject here. Local news describing someone as a high profile individual convinces me that they are high profile in their home town. Even if the home town is a city of the size of Boston, I don't think that necessarily makes them high profile in the Wikipedia sense. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I am a lonely voice, I want to expand on my argument. First, someone who makes a believable claim to be the subject requests deletion. I agree that this is directly due to wanting to minimize the sexual assault case, and I don't think this makes much difference. (I certainly do not think that punishing someone for past self promotion is a good reason to keep the article.) I do not find the policy on honoring such requests to be completely clear, but my past usage (consistent with other practice that I've seen at AfD) is that a "weak keep" might become a "weak delete". Now let me examine the sourcing. We have substantial coverage in reliable local news sources, including the Boston Globe. It appears that he is reasonably well-known in the Boston area. We have a 2019 piece in Newsweek about the sexual assaults, but as post-2013 Newsweek is not generally a reliable source, I do not count this for so much. We have a profile in Magic (American magazine), which I do take seriously. Not mentioned elsewhere: Genii (magazine) apparently talked about his health problems in its August 2011 issue; he also had a review column in Genii. I'm seeing someone with a modicum of local celebrity, and a modestly good reputation in a relatively small profession. I think this adds up to a "weak keep" verging on "keep" for me without the request from the subject. I on the other hand do not think that deleting the article weakens the encyclopedia, and with the request of the subject, that leaves me at a weak delete. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to state explicitly that we should never keep an article simply because we want to punish the article subject by recording their misdeeds for all to see; that sort of behavior would be detrimental to the project. However, I do want to push back on two parts: the notion that the article subject is someone for whom WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies; and the source analysis that fully discounts Newsweek.
Regarding the notion that he's someone for whom WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies, he'd have to be a relatively unknown, non-public figure. Based off of the sourcing, I think there's substantial reasons to believe that he doesn't quite fit that bill. We have a source that explicitly describes him as "well-known" (from 2019 Newsweek), and we also have a few sources that would cut against him being "relatively unknown". The 2006 Boston Globe piece that I listed above states that he performs regularly on Broadway and that he was regularly was a part of "Monday Night Magic". According to an archived version of his website, he was apparently performing on Monday Night Magic as recently as 2018. His archived website also has a number of reviews on it which, if the site isn't fabricating things, indicates that he's received reviews from a Brooklyn newspaper (Park Slope Courier) as well as New Mexico paper Taos News. I can't find them on newspapers.com, but I don't doubt their existence. Additionally, crawling through proquest, I have been able to find additional coverage on the article subject or his acts from sources that span from The New York Times (12) and I see evidence that he was covered in a July 2014 review in Magic Magazine for his "105th Annual Salute to Magic" show. That show got coverage from The New Yorker and Greek News Online. None of these additional sources, on their own, would confer notability. But, they do appear to show that the individual is well-known as a performer outside of the Boston area and has been a public figure during his magic performance days. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Newsweek: per its RSP Entry, Newsweek after 2013 is a "case-by-case" source, not a generally unreliable source. I believe that the specific Newsweek source is reliable for the purposes that it's being used for. And, it indicates that the crime receive attention from a national outlet. It doesn't appear to have the hallmarks of clickbait reporting and it appears to have substantial original reporting (the WCVB report, which is cited in the Newsweek article as a source of other information relating to the case, doesn't include the quote from the police report). This seems like the kind of Newsweek report that would be a reliable source for the facts and would contribute towards notablity.
For the reasons I've explained in my above comment and elsewhere, I believe that the individual is a notable person (per WP:BASIC), is public figure who is well-known even outside of his local Boston area, and is someone for whom an article should be kept. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that there's room for good faith disagreement on this AfD, and it looks likely that I will remain in the minority. I agree that Newsweek is fine for facts on this case, but I believe it may be suspect for establishing notability (as per the Newsweek entry on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and noticing that "well-known magician is sexual abuser" is the kind of man bites dog article that is good clickbait). Some of the reviews of shows on his old website would help support notability, if they could be verified. And I did look earlier on the NYTimes, and found some passing mentions (which I think tend to help support that he was well-respected in the magician community). I'm still seeing a somewhat-more-than WP:MILL professional magician: an article would slightly contribute to the encyclopedia, but looks pretty far from essential.
Also, although it is mostly moot: I agree he's not a low-profile individual. I disagree that a moderately successful magician is a public figure, which I understand as a substantially higher bar than not low-profile. (The policy guidance and examples on public vs medium profile vs low-profile could be clearer.) As I say, mostly moot after the guilty plea. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per Mike's sources. Also clearly not a low-profile individual as we define it, since he was a career stage performer happy to court coverage in nationally-circulated media like the Boston Globe, and until now happy to try to use Wikipedia to promote himself too. WP:BLPCRIME was misapplied here and the section on the child sex abuse allegations should be restored. – Joe (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that according to sources at Talk:David Oliver (magician)#Nomination of David Oliver (magician) for deletion the subject has pled guilty, been convicted and is serving his sentence, so you might take his subsequent attempts to invoke WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE with a grain of salt. It's also another reason that WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. – Joe (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME was applied without the knowledge of him pleading guilty. A cursory check of news/google revealed no such conviction, no other editor seemed to know about it, and it wasn't until GlenoverB brought it to my attention on the article talk page after the AfD. Additionally looking at David Oliver (magician) § Refereences, aside from the allegations and non-notable illness, there was very little coverage of him as a notable magician. Therefore, the approach was that we need to "(presume) in favor of privacy"[1] & "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."[2]. Therefore, without the conviction information and questionable notability (hence this AfD), I believe this was a reasonable approach. Had a conviction been known and appropriately sourced, then I would have favored keeping it. Notwithstanding, I believe that some of this AfD discussion already supports that this nature of specific crime can result in unnecessary bias - especially because many of us feel like he might deserve public shame, that alone does not merit this article being notable - per WP:PERPETRATOR. TiggerJay(talk) 17:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody arguing that him being charged with child sex abuse and thusly arrested makes him notable in its own right. What makes him notable is the in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent from him. All people supporting "keep" are pointing explicitly to WP:GNG (or WP:BASIC, which is basically GNG tailored towards biographies), which goes to show that the supporters of "keep" are making WP:PAG-based arguments here for the article's inclusion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, you did some excellent research in finding those articles - I believe that they do establish that he was someone certainly of notability/significance within his own community. It would be helpful if those things were included in the article, and it would be awesome if you would do so. Given a look at the references, if you strip away the crime (again at the time of nom this was just known as an allegation) and the questionable noteworthiness of the bird injury, there is nothing that makes him look as someone besides a local area magician who sought some publicity. That was the basis of the AfD. But yes, I agree, there is clearly much more about this individuals notability than was included in the article, and it would be very helpful if someone included that so the weight of the article appropriately demonstrates his significance in the field of magic. TiggerJay(talk) 18:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiggerjay: I'll work on trying to incorporate more of this information into the article. There's definitely a lot of room to expand on the career. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What Mike said, plus you should bear in mind that notable and public figure aren't synonyms: generally speaking, the latter is a lower bar than the former. I'm not faulting you for not knowing about the conviction, and whilst I disagree that he is not a public figure, I can see that taking to AfD was a reasonable step. As for "unnecessary bias", I think it's equally important to recognise that our BLP policy exists to protect the privacy of people who haven't necessarily sought publicity, and protect Wikipedia from legal consequences, not to suppress widely-reported negative information about people who have otherwise been happy to use us for promotion. – Joe (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, absolutely the benefit of this process is bringing forward information otherwise unknown or not previously discovered. With new information available, he certainly does appears far more notable than the article itself presents itself. I also agree, as mentioned in the nom, he was happy to contribute to this article, until he wasn't - which chips away at his questionable "public figure" status - which is now irrelevant (as it related to the accusation which is now a conviction). Overall I believe this is likely turning out as I predicted. TiggerJay(talk) 18:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. sources and overall notability is within inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete KeepWhile he is marginally notable, lots of marginally notable people are not in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not any worse because of that. Removing this article will benefit the subject of the article and have negligible effect on the value of Wikipedia. If he were more notable I’d have a different opinion, but I feel that, in this case, the balance tilts to deletion. After seeing more of the posts here, and looking at the References posted above by TiggerJay, he is notable, even before the criminal allegations. The article does need improvement to include better references. -- rsjaffe🗩🖉 14:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG has been met, and subject has been comfortable with the article's existence for 13 years. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. It’s an informative article. Just because something that is negative is added to the article is not a reason to delete it. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
after further research there is a lot of good stuff on this character/ pedophile. Article should be expanded etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the sources I would say he's notable. Many sources have covered him just as a magician and many others have covered the child sexual abuse allegations. WP:BLPREQUESTDEL normally would mean deletion if he's borderline notable, but the specific allegations raise concerns. The motivations of requesting deletion seem to be pretty clearly to remove allegations of child sexual abuse. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 23:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are enough sources for notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he shouldn't have been considered notable before the recent legal issues, and those issues shouldn't make him notable. This is why self-promotion for one's business interest in local newspapers and trade magazines shouldn't be enough for biographies to meet GNG. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the WP:GNGs are not right but this guy meets them and he is a bonafide pedophile! He pleaded guilty to gropeing little boys a few weeks ago and it did not make even the local news! I would assume from reading all this AFD he is not going to have luck at removing his article he made purely for promotional purposes on Wikipedia. I guess It’s in essence getting back at him for putting himself on for promotional purposes and now he can’t get himself off it to hide his hideous behavior to little kids. The article is very misleading to his criminal behavior because he has now pleaded guilty to the charges. Poor guy It’s very sad that he is very sick on top of it all! I agree though he is only known through his own publicity where he got in news articles etc. He has not had that much publicity regarding his child molestation. There are so many perverts can’t give them all air time on the news! --Rrmmll22 (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I must add though, the post user:JalenFolf made on the talk page came across in a very harrasing way. But I did notice he is auistc! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JalenFolf's neurology doesn't have bearing on the substance of this discussion.
We don't evaluate article notability based upon the fact that a person did bad things or tried to manipulate Wikipedia; we base it off of the coverage they receive from reliable sources. I believe firmly that the sourcing discussed both in my top-level comment and in subsequent comments, taken together, show notability per WP:BASIC. Wikipedia isn't about using original research to punish evildoers, but Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia (not a soapbox!) written from a neutral point of view that is free for public use. Please keep the deletion arguments grounded within the framework of our inclusion guidelines.
I'd kindly ask you to voluntarily strike your responses to 力, along these lines, by crossing them out with <s></s> tags. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wasn't notable before the child abuse charges, therefore still isn't now, regardless of the result of the court case. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Wasn't notable before X event, therefore isn't notable now" doesn't appear to be in line with WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, which would allow people to gain notability as a result of additional coverage received. And, I don't see a good argument here that he wasn't notable before the child abuse charges, given the sources above. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are very poor. If the abuse charge wasn't in play then this would be a simple delete. However, even if the abuse charge is notable, then that's still a BLP1E problem. Non-notable people who commit a crime don't become notable unless that crimes generates very significant coverage (and even then, quite often the article would be on the event rather than the perpetrator, i.e. "Murder of X". As far as I can see, we don't even have a RS for the verdict on this one yet, a week after it happened. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The court website (note disclaimer [3]) dates the guilty pleas to Oct 20th, which is over two weeks ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, sources pre-dating the sexual abuse charges do little to establish notability by normal Wikipedia standards. The lack of any WP:RS-compliant secondary reporting of a guilty plea would seem to indicate the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Examination of the sources (I tracked down and added an archived URL for one) shows that apart from the legal charge, the only coverage of his career outside magicians' magazines and organizations is the Boston Globe article on his recovery from illness. This single article in a mainstream publication is insufficient to establish notability, and one of the trade references is to his own writing; his career has not even received a large amount of press in his field. His position heading a chapter of the Society of Young Magicians does not confer notability. So rather than marginally notable, in my estimation this is a BLP1E; the accusation of criminal conduct is responsible for the vast majority of the coverage. Since as others have noted, no non-primary source has recorded the outcome of the case, the event has not given him lasting notability. Much as I appreciate the problems of covering niche professions under our notability rules, I can find no evidence that this person meets any criterion for inclusion. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as not notable. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think in this case, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies, as the coverage is of a marginal nature, and they are mostly a private individual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mikehawk10. Substantial Boston Globe coverage from being a magician and substantial coverage of the court case adds up to notability. — Bilorv (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2021 (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.