Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datari Turner

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. Per BLP an admin may delete any BLP of a borderline notable subject while closing an AFD if there is credible evidence that the subject of the article requested deletion. Consider this done. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Datari Turner[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion for a number of reasons which, while not individually mandating deletion, add up to what I feel is a convincing argument:

The subject is of borderline notability. Most of the notability claims seem to rely on inheriting notability from more famous people he has worked with. A Google News search shows that he is notable, but not very.
COI: The article was originally written by a user who has admitted editing on the subject's behalf and who has vigorously attempted to maintain the article as promotional and remove content embarrassing to his client. (See the talk page).
A user claiming to be the subject himself has also removed the content he regards as embarrassing, made implied legal threats and demanded that the article be deleted. (See talk)
Verifiability: The embarrassing content in question was referenced to TMZ, and no other RS source could be found to confirm or rebut it although there is plenty of gossip. The rest is not very well referenced either. This is meant to be a BLP but where is there an RS reference for the “early life” biographical details?

Lets take that all together: We have a person of borderline notability/verifiability who tried to get themselves a promotional biography on Wikipedia while trying to suppress use of any negative coverage that exists and then, then this failed, requests deletion.

I say we give him what he wants! We don't always agree to such requests but there have been cases where we have and I think this is similar to those. The subject is not so famous that the absence of an article leaves a hole in Wikipedia. The article is more trouble than it is worth to anybody and I don't like the idea of the subject of an article dictating its content. Lets lose it and get on with writing more important articles. DanielRigal (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this the most boring AfD ever? I am a bit surprised not to see the user(s) who practically begged for it to be deleted on the talk page showing up here to vote for deletion. Ho hum... --DanielRigal (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nominator's own assertions "borderline notability" and "Google News search shows that he is notable, but not very". Per Wikipedia criteria, even minimal notability is notability none-the-less. It would seem other article issues would be best addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the verifiability issues? I can't see anything reliable that gives us biographical background. All we have is stuff which he or his agent have written themselves. What do you propose that we keep, a poorly referenced, promotional biography or a stub?

What about the subject's own request for the article to be deleted?

This isn't just about notability and lack of notability is certainly not the only criteria that can lead to an article being deleted --DanielRigal (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2011 (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.