Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Cogan

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Cogan

[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)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a film producer. While producing an Academy Award winning film is a valid claim of notability if the article is sourced properly, it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to have reliable source coverage just because it's been stated -- but the three footnotes here all nominally verify the film's existence while completely failing to even mention Cogan's name at all. Note as well that two of the film's other three producers do not have Wikipedia articles (and the one who does was also the film's director, and has sufficient RS coverage for that fact). No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source him much better than this, but the sourcing here isn't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have now provided substantial references and all name Dan Cogan and his work extensively. Nauriya, let's talk - 20:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Nauriya: At the moment all the references seem to be for the film Icarus. If this was the only reason why Cogan is notable, then perhaps his page should be merged with that of the film. I note other articles about Cogan, e.g. this one discussing his financing of Indie films [1], this one [2], this one [3] etc. Cogan is listed by the BFI [4] If the Cogan article was modified to include coverage of Cogan other than Icarus, then this would build the case for an independent article on Cogan. Given the coverage I've found in addition to the coverage due to Icarus, I think that Cogan justifies a page. Ross-c (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the sources provided by Ross-c, only this is significant coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 09:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist because there has been meaningful discussion of the refs since the second relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2018 (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.