Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bibliographies

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Bibliographies. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Bibliographies|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Bibliographies. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bibliographies/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Bibliographies

Damien Costas

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Bibliographies, News media, Music, Business, Management, and Australia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I am the author of this Wikipedia page. I note @S-Aura that you have nominated this page for deletion. I am curious to know why?

I would say that the article on Damien Costas clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria under both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There is significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth, not just in passing.

Examples include:

• The Sydney Morning Herald’s detailed report on Costas’s bankruptcy annulment and business dealings (https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/porn-king-says-supporters-prepared-to-forgive-his-millions-in-bad-debt-20210728-p58dmf.html).

• Crikey’s reporting on his editorial transformation of Australian Penthouse (https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/11/07/penthouse-australia-alt-right/).

• The Guardian and ABC News coverage of public events he organized (Milo Yiannopoulos and Nigel Farage tours).

• International Business Times on his media influence (https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/damien-costas-reshaping-thought-behind-media-influence-responsibility-moulding-public-opinion-1727160).

These sources span business, politics, and culture — showing that the subject of Damien Costas has been covered across domains over a number of years. I believe that the article is neutrally written and properly cited. I would argue that there is no policy-based reason to delete this page. CharlotteMilic (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tobok

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

Not seeing WP:GNG being met. It is clear from one of the references ("Marketing, Branding & Public Relations Fast-Track Cyber Security Start-up") that he has spent a lot of work on his marketing and this has generated a lot of press releases and interviews used in this article, but there's nothing here that I consider to be in-depth, independent coverage about the man himself. He has written a book, published about 6 months ago, but it hasn't garnered a single review on Amazon. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bibliographies, and Computing. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for two reasons. First, it's WP:TOOSOON: his book was only recently published and has yet to get reviews. The appearances on TV are by him, not about him, so none of them contribute to WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk)
Delete. I removed much of the blatant PR from the article; note that Stojan and his firm are SEO/PR flacks that have been spamming Wikipedia for ages. The previously removed USA Today 'contributor' piece was directly from another SEO firm. There's also a version of article with pretty much the same junk sourcing that was deleted by Jimfbleak last year. I can't seem to find much else; it's challenging to pick out reliable material from the flood of PR. The book is odd; I can't find anything on the publisher "Manhattan Business Press"; it only seems to have published this one work and the address is to a small law firm. The article states the publisher is "Pearl Street Sourcing Advisory Services", which contradicts the first few pages of the book itself. Not clear, but does not appear to be a notable work in any way.Sam Kuru (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – A couple of the references are OK in my opinion, but that is not enough to meet notability.Mysecretgarden (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]