Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduard Davis

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Davis

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

Another of the Expewikiwriter paid group account articles. A lot of the articles made by that group were fairly obviously non-notable; however, in this case, I honestly don't know how you judge the notability of fashion designers. He's not so obviously notable that my lack of knowledge oof fashion wouldn't matter, but the standards may b somewhat lower for more obscure fields. AfD is usually pretty good at coming to conclusions on such matters. 86.** IP (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability per WP:NOTABILITY. Advertisement. Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep properly sourced. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate? Particuarly in the light of my !vote below. SmartSE (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 10. Snotbot t • c » 20:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems to be notable and sourced properly. I don't see any major reasons for deleting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogicalCreator (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think one could argue the sourcing is terrible: A good amount of content does not actually appear in the articles cited, for instance, only the first half of "In 2002, Davis was selected as one of Ebony Magazine’s 24 “Super Bachelors.” After his photo and bio appeared in the magazine’s June 2002 issue, he received more than 700 letters from women requesting to meet him." appears in the source, which is to be expected, since the source is the article which supposedly triggered the women contacting him. Now, that's not an argument against notability, of course, but please, please don't take the article at it's word, it's written by a PR flack. If kept, we're probably going to have to stubbify it unless someone has the offline sources, because, looking at how he uses sources (e.g. him addding material not in the Ebony magazine source, or the examples documented at WP:Articles for deletion/Richard Finney), one cannot WP:AGF about the offline sources being used accurately. 86.** IP (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - judging from the titles of the offline sources only "For Fashion Designer Eduard, Inspiration Comes From an Unlikely Source: Music," and “Antoinette King/Eduard Davis,” appear to be specifically about Davis. In addition, based on the other articles that I have delved into by the same editor who wrote this, it is difficult to AGF that they have accurately represented these sources. Unless someone else is able to get them, then I'm not happy about basing the article on them. Essentially, without more sources, it is unclear whether WP:BIO/WP:GNG can be met - "multiple reliable sources" requires more than two glossy magazine articles. I have looked on google news, books and factiva and can't find anything else suitable. The few things I did find were [1] [2] and [3] - no use. If he was really a notable designer, we would be able to find more than this. As for the content of the article as it is at the moment, I'd say it is very close to G11 (blatant spam). I just removed some of the worst but there doesn't seem much point doing the rest at the moment. SmartSE (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evience of notabilityOxy20 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont think the sourcing is sufficient. Being on the Detroit list of Bachelors is not notability, and the proucts have clearly not made much of an impact. Fashion gets written about , so the failure to find really ood sources in an area liek this make the lack of current notability pretty clear DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 17 April 2012 (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.