Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Colhoun (director)


 * 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Jeff Colhoun (director)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



this is a puffed up resume that lacks in depth coverage and reliable sources. It looks pretty convincing at first but several of these sites are built to promote individuals and are not reliable, such as telenews.pk, which can't even keep their company name straight on their about us page. In fact, several of the sources are just copied from the businessinsider piece which appear to be the only thing that's actually independent of him/a pr team. Praxidicae (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes Telenews was not a good source to include as it was redundant but it doesn't appear to be a good enough reason to delete a page. Deleting the source that copied business insider seems more reasonable than deleting the entire page. There are plenty of relevant press links to support notability on this individual. Jamesdanglewood (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Like which ones? Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Business insider, Vacations and Travel, Tech Advisor, Daily Herald, Fstpoppers, london daily post. Jamesdanglewood (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's almost laughable. this is a one sentence mention, this is an interview, i am 100% sure that this piece is unreliable as it's clear they didn't even bother to do a cursory editing check and it was user submitted via this garbage site, appears to be mostly an interview and this is 100% a fake news site trying to pass itself off as legitimate.Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This daily herald piece should be removed as it appears to be a less reliable source. Other sources included appear to be reliable. Please note there a source that states otherwise to be able to reference. I have removed the Daily Herald citation. Annemariecarney (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No they're not for exactly the reasons I pointed out. Praxidicae (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The articles look to be from reliable sources and the subject meets the requirements of notability.Britannica Staff (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think that the articles I pointed out are reliable, I genuinely question your ability to edit Wikipedia for the better. I've struck my comment as it was unduly harsh however I am just going to point out my above edit which shows very clearly and indisputably that they are not reliable source and are literally using photos of famous people to pass themselves off as legitimate.Praxidicae (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I am going to agree with . The sources are not strong, and there seems to be some meat and/or sock issues with multiple COI editors. VViking Talk Edits 19:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Praxidicae. The sources used in this article are at best a bunch of PR pieces. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:38, 28 January 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.