Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datari Turner (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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Datari Turner

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

Spam article likely created by an undeclared paid editor and cleaned up by a declared paid editor. Written in current marketing speak, rather than the 1960s speak that we require for G11. Clear purpose and intent is to promote the subject and not provide encyclopedic value, making it excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOT. Notability doesn't even come into question here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing really has changed since 2011 to make Turner clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This doesn't really say much. Would appreciate if you could point out specific reasons as to why you feel he is not notable. Many of these articles have been published between 2011 and now. JacobMW (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO article on a subject of questionable notability. Such content is specifically excluded per WP:NOT. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand how some of the language could be seen as promotional. Would you or another editor be open to reviewing a second draft that is more from a neutral POV? JacobMW (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He didn't meet any criterion of WP:ACTOR and the sources themselves majority unreliable such that cannot meet WP:GNG — Ammarpad (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please link me to this criterion? I cannot find it. JacobMW (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Largely created and edited by SPA and Paid editors and may have been a way of recreating an article Datari Turner Productions already deleted 3 times under this name. That said I had a look at the sources and a good portion are rewrites of press releases, (compare [1] with [2]), passing mentions, affiliated sources, churnalisme and WP:INTERVIEWS. The TMZ article [3] is highly negative and the only thing used in the article is that he was married to this person. So even if the article was rewritten taking out the fluff it is unlikely that it pass GNG. So as fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG as well. Domdeparis (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, our organization made no attempt to create the Datari Turner Productions page. This may have been an attempt the client directly. JacobMW (talk) JacobMW (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hey guys, just stepping in here. Datari is a client of my firm Mister Wiki, and with all the recent scrutiny on our practices, I am making an effort to converse with the community, and at the very least, make a case (disclosed COI). I just wanted to take some time to include a few more notable sources that I discovered through some research:

If you would be open to it, I'd like to make a revised draft of this page with newly found sources, and propose it to you guys to see if it passes the community's guidelines and policies. Let me know your thoughts. Happy Thanksgiving! JacobMW (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mentioned only in passing in Variety, XXL and USA Today articles, and is not mentioned at all in The Daily Star save for photograph credits. Not enough to establish subject notability and is looking like a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a fair point. I will research and bring up some of his coverage that is specific to him as a film producer and is in high-profile publications to get your thoughts. JacobMW (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey, everyone. Just wanted to expand a bit on my above note in favor of keeping the article:

The original reason for deletion was due to the ‘marketing speak’, however, that is something that can be fixed through editing & peer review (new draft here which is written to be much less promotional) rather than submitting through AfD (WP:ATD).

In regards to the question of WP:GNG, Turner has definitely had more than just ‘trivial mentions’ in high-profile publications such as The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and more. The coverage on him (which is referenced in the new draft of the article), covers him and his TV / film projects in depth. JacobMW (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Domdeparis, the many of the secondary sources cited by the article are retreads of press releases or sources affiliated with the article subject. Also note that notability is not inhered from other, more notable subjects.--SamHolt6 (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minority uninvolved opinion here, but I believe he meets notability for having created and written five television series (in addition to his acting, producing, and modeling careers). There is substantial/significant coverage of him in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Yes, the article is promotional sounding, but remember WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:NOIMPROVEMENT. The article needs trimming (by about 30%), and help and copyediting, but to my eyes he meets both WP:GNG and the subsidiary notability guidelines, especially having four different careers (which divides up the coverage but coverage on each creates cumulative notability). This is part of the problem with so-called hyphenates (people with multiple careers/abilities in the arts). Also, my last comment: Part of the problem with this kind of wiki article is that it seems to be substituting for someone's personal website, which a Wikipedia article is decidedly not; if someone wants this kind of chit-chatty promotional biography, they should create their own website, for heaven's sake (they're free these days -- hello). That said, I do feel this person reaches our notability threshold. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Softlavender: I've created a new draft of the article in my sandbox here (ignore the external links at the bottom). I've cleaned up the article to remove a lot of unimportant and non-notable content regarding his personal life and focused more on his career and the publications that have written about him / his work. Mentions of him are far more than just a trivial mention of him, but again, about him and his work as a film producer. I'd appreciate any input that you or anyone in this thread has. Thank you. JacobMW (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not personally interested in providing input on drafts; I am only here to assess the notability of the subject in question. Softlavender (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is as shown above tenuous at best; what tips this over then is marketing language and COI editing/collusion issues. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:40, 27 November 2017 (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.