Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colion Noir

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colion Noir

[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 subject barely scratches the surface of notability. There's some stuff in the twitterverse, but not enough secondary in-depth sourcing to prove notability by our standards. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With respect to the nominator, more than enough in-depth reliable sourcing from WP:NEWSORGS exist: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc. The sources span the course of multiple years so WP:SUSTAINED is met too. There's also mild coverage in academic sources too, see here (Critical Policy Studies) or here (Oxford University Press) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Never a good thing when I come across an AFD nom and think "I have definitely heard of this public figure before!". Turns out that is because he was on Real Time with Bill Maher as an interviewed guest a while back. Going further, the article includes notable coverage from the LA Times here, a mention (albeit borderline trivial) in the Washington Post here, notable mention in Fox News here and here and here, (plus many more in Google), in the New York Times here, mentioned in this book. I do not think I have ever been able to find so many sources demonstrating significant coverage for an AFD before. Personally I think this is a potential candidate for speedy keep on ground 3 - this nom is erroneous given that there is sufficient secondary sourcing to prove notability. However, I do not consider myself experienced enough to close a nom for this reason and instead defer to any suitably experienced editor who may agree. Such-change47 (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 16 May 2022 (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.