Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimetri Hogan (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Once the vague Keep votes by now-blocked editors are disregarded, there is a comprehensive consensus that the sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability, with a strong implication that this is significantly promotional. ~ mazca  talk 14:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Dimetri Hogan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Here we go again - this is a completely and utterly non-notable individual and literally nothing has changed since the last AFD. In fact, this borders on a hoax as the primary claims here are not in the sources and if we remove them, we're left with almost nothing. Praxidicae (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  14:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  14:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  14:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I declined the speedy, but am at the moment neutral on notability. I want to look further into things like this source. Aware of the issues around the Maxim piece thanks to the Nom's research.      StarM 14:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read the source itself it says the same thing Maxim does and is published by T1, which the subject operates and is a digital advertising agency. Praxidicae (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Praxidicae. I haven't yet had the chance to review, however have no objection to this closing if a consensus develops speedily. Seems from your nom that maybe SALT should be considered if it's repeatedly problematic.      StarM 19:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete — I'd say in terms of WP:BASIC this is borderline; some of the sources cited are clearly promo fluff, but a few seem just about okay, and put together might add up to general notability. However, I've seen nothing that comes close to WP:CREATIVE notability (on which point, the list of alleged awards is unreferenced), and to me, that tilts this towards delete. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete paid for-spam with no significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 15:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete – I think a speedy would be appropriate. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Maxim, Vman, Fashionweekdaily, Flaunt are major magazines in the fashion sector. There are many more citations about the subject also available in Google if you do a basic research including from the news websites also. There are citations available which shows he worked major celebrities and toured with live shows which the nomitaror removed before proposing deletion.Alanzie (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Alanzie (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Even though some of them are PR, I think at least 3-4 references which are good to consider and pass WP:GNG. However, I would like to see some refs to his achievements before voting. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 10:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am really concerned about your understanding of references and sourcing. Anyone - including me, can generate 20+ "references" about themselves. The quantity is irrelevant. It's the quality. Every. single. source here is PR, a passing mention or blatantly fake. Praxidicae (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said quantity is more relevant than quality. I just said some of the Refs are good enough to consider. Please stop pushing. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 07:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - subject does not meet WP:ARTIST due to a lack of in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources. The quality of the sources covering the topic (both on Wiki and off) are generally poor; they are either found in borderline reliable sources, are laced with WP:PRIMARY information (thus failing the independent requirement), or lack in-depth coverage. For example, The best source currently cited (from The Source) seems to be a press release for Hogan taking a job at an advertising firm, the Vegas article was written by a publicist (not magazine staff), and the Maxim article was (per the article page) presented by T1 Advertising - the same firm which recently appointed Hogan as CCO. Once you cut through all the native advertising and placed PR, none of the sources cited (or that could be cited via a WP:BEFORE check) credibly indicate the subject meets the criteria laid down by WP:ARTIST, and the repeated issues with WP:PRIMARY information makes me discount GNG as well. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Request to closing admin I have added more citations and content after this process started.Kindly take a look before making the decision.Alanzie (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Just because some of the sources are promotional does not mean that all of the sources are unreliable or not independent. He has WP:SIGCOV and meet WP:GNG based on the sources provided. Also WP:HEY with newly added references. - Roger editor (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, which sources would those be? The black hat SEO ones or the blatant press releases? Praxidicae (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Would also like clarification; some of the new sources added seemed to be re-cites of existing ones. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 14:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject has multiple independent coverage and easily passes GNG. Serankail (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Questioning the thoroughness of the vote above; the editor commented here had participated in another AfD less than a minute before and that's not a lot of time to go through 20-odd references. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 14:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have looked at the revision history of page, it seems that significant news sources have been recently added to the page, he easily passes WP:GNG. Billyshudson (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is Billyshudson's 6th edit in Wikipedia altogether. Geschichte (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 14:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A source analysis to combat the ridiculous WP:SPA votes:
 * Delete — damn! y’all made go through the arduous task of creating a source assessment table for something she clearly already stated in the rationale for nominating the article for deletion? Which was (and still is, as we can now see) that there are literally 0 reliable sources in the article. Oh well, subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not all the links are press releases. The Italian edition of Vogue, NY Post are good references. These links are enough for a photographer to establish his notability. Satisfies WP:BLP1E. Bretalins (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * it does not establish anything. He isn’t a photographer for Vogue, he submitted it to vogue and it’s not even about him. It’s about the clothes. That does not make him notable. Praxidicae (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Same goes for the NYPost article, which is not about Hogan and makes no mention of Hogan in the article body - he only furnished the photograph. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:01, 7 November 2020 (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.