Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dujuan Thomas

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dujuan Thomas

[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)

Minor coverage related to two incidents he was involved in but only tabloid stuff afaict (he once accused Mel B of striking him). I cannot access ref #5 due to geoblocking but from GNews preview it does not look like much either. No significant coverage about him anywhere as far as I can tell, so fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Regards So Why 08:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I didn’t support this when it was an AFC submission, as it clearly failed WP:NACTOR/WP: ANYBIO, and I cannot see any significant improvements since then. IMDb is not an acceptable source and the other sources do not demonstrate significant coverage. Clear attempt to inflate the individual’s importance to something that it isn’t. Dan arndt (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Wikipedia Notability ( people ) states that if any of the criteria is met that a person is notable.

Dujuan does fit in as WP:ENT which states Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: as he clearly has notable works in film,print, runway modeling and online episodes as noted in IMDb ( a credible and only source that signifies actors as verified) he also has a large following (cult following) across his many platforms as refrenced.

He also qualifies for Wp:Author which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Which he has produced and wrote a notable film.

Should I Include more ? Because at this point I've covered several things that cover this individual.

Also So there are actually hundreds of media outlets that covered the Mel B incident, such as MSN and Yahoo News. As well as the TV show I refrenced on the article, but I did not go into depth due to the allegations not being finalized in court.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbycarroll (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbycarroll: Indeed, there are a number of sources that covered said incident (hardly hundreds though), however, all such coverage for Thomas boils down to "a male model" or "a male model says ...". It's not an in-depth coverage of Thomas himself and even if it were, it would fall under WP:BIO1E. Regards So Why 17:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't need blatent promotion of an absolute nobody thank you. This individual fails WP:ANYBIO and all applicable WP:SNG. Recomend WP:SALT. John from Idegon (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI HOUNDING (John from Idegon) you have wiki hounded me my entire time on wikipedia please refrain from blatant disrespect. I have given several reasons why this individual is notable and this is not a promotion. This article qualifies under WP:ENT & WP:AUTHOR Abbycarroll (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add as well in WP:Npossible it states "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Also stated in that articles says that reliable sources do not have to be in English if you do research, there are hundreds of Articles covering :Dujuan Thomas: across the world. Abbycarroll (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the Mel B incident and his tangential involvement in a robbery, I find no significant coverage of Thomas as an entertainer or author or in any other capacity. There are no reliable sources to support notability for an encyclopedia article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Those are notable stories/coverage in accordance with Wiki. It states the articles content itself does not have to correlate to be notable.

The Television shows he was covered in also count as reliable sources. Dish Nation and Paducah2.

The Paducah2 source actually covered all of his work as an actor/writer and model. And his large following ( which counts as notable in accordance with WP:ENT

Abbycarroll (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:NACTOR and blatant promotion. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not make a credible claim of notability, with a handful of very inconsequential achievements; sources don't amount to much. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are other local and/or unreliable. He's met some famous people and talked to them. So have lots of student journalists and me and your cousin. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
- No apparent significant news coverage from reliable sources outside of Mel B complaint (see "subjects notable only for one event").
- No apparent significant secondary source coverage of his role as a "celebrity interviewer, model, actor, cinematographer, photographer, and business owner."
- WP:NPOSSIBLE: "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." – Archer1234 (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete- The article does have credibility of notability from my research. WP:NACTOR is covered with his work in Film, and his social following. After reviewing his television appearances which are a credible source of his celebrity status. It seems that some users are putting personal opinions above Wikipedia norms. However I think more research can be done and sources added to better this article. But at this time it does meet a basic minimum requirement to be included in the encyclopedia. Topoint22 (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC) — Topoint22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

His social following? The article claims "a following of over 11 thousand on Instagram". Wikipedia does not as far as I am aware use number of followers on social media as a guide to notability. Even where it does even mention followers, it tends to talk in terms of multiple millions of followers being worth mentioning, and even then an independent reliable source is required to say that that is a notable number of followers. It is not acceptable to use as a source the subject's own social media page. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the creator of this article has been blocked for socking, I've G5 speedy nominated this. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how G5 works; I've declined the G5.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE, nothing Thomas has done is wikisignificant, no sources cited in article or found (allbeit with a quick gsearch only) discuss is work indepth (plus many of them are not wikireliable). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:38, 27 September 2019 (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.