Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coke Daniels


 * 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. ✗ plicit  14:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Coke Daniels

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely unreferenced article about a film director, not making any strong claim to passage of WP:CREATIVE. This literally just says that he exists and then lists his filmography without any content to contextualize its significance -- but as always, the notability test for film directors is not automatically passed just because the work exists, and instead requires evidence that he passes WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about his work in reliable sources. And while two of his films have their own articles, one features absolutely no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:NFILM at all, and the other is of debatable notability at best as it's still in the production pipeline and has not yet seen a confirmed release date. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of a lot more independent coverage and analysis than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. I found credits and some brief mentions, including a flurry of recent articles about fans criticizing the trailer for his recent film Karen, but no significant coverage of the individual as a director or in any other capacity. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I have a feeling this will be revived and recreated by others if the Karen film continues to get mocked, but as Bearcat says, the subject isn't notable enough at this point to warrant an article. (At the absolute least, the article, at least in its current form, should be moved to draftspace if it is kept.) –  Broccoli  &#38; Coffee (Oh hai) 18:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete It is high time we stopped allowing articles sourced only to unreliable sources. This article has 0 reliable sources and so should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources, per nom. -Justiyaya (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Wait. This guy, whether you like his new movie or not, has absolutely captured the Zeitgeist. Keep for now. The latest effort is already notorious and highly publicised. No point in deleting yet. Let it play out, at least see how the film does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.228.154 (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.