Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Allan Jones

: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. Toddst1 is right that lack of coverage of a specific industry is not a free pass. Although Ebikeguy's rationale is a bit stronger, it still fails to address the requirement for multiple sources and that doesn't even touch whether or not the particular source given counts as significant coverage about the subject. v/r - TP 16:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

=[[David Allan Jones]]=

:{{la|David Allan Jones}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|David Allan Jones}})

WP:NN aesthetician. While the Globe & Mail article does mention him, it clearly minimizes his impact on the industry, characterizing him as "work doggedly behind the scenes." and that he's an expat is the focus of the article, not his accomplishments in his field. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep The news coverage is sufficient, given the limited attention RS pay to his profession. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

::There is not a lower bar for professions that are not in the limelight and this keep is not in accordance with policy. I think this comment should be discounted. Toddst1 (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete as having been insufficient in-depth coverage by independent third-party sources. If links are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete - The limited attention to the field of makeup is not a reason to give a free pass to any individual who happens to get some passing coverage. The coverage in the Globe and Mail piece is using him as an example of the ex-pat community and is not really about his makeup work. There is no other significant coverage about the individual. As such, there is no depth of coverage, and no indication that there are more sources that one might be able to get to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - Globe and Mail article focuses on him. So what if he works out of the limelight much of the time. Coverage is coverage, and important "behind the scenes" people are notable as such. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment "Focuses on him"???? The Globe and Mail piece is an article about ex-pats and only covers Jones in a few paragraphs in a three page article. An in any case, this one bit represents only one source. Where's the multiple sources? -- Whpq (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment- Yes, it quite clearly focuses on him. He is the lead subject in the article, the first person discussed. He is the first interviewee quoted, and the article seems to present him as an excellent example of what the article is about, "a thriving subculture of Canadian expatriates who, while not dominating the Italian fashion industry, work doggedly behind the scenes to ensure that Milan remains the fashion capital of the world." The article in itself asserts the noteworthiness of those who work behind the scenes, in the shadows of those who get all the glory, and it holds up Mr. Jones as a fine example of that genre. See the other reference as an answer to your question about multiple sources. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The article actually minimizes his impact on the industry - it's far from the in-depth coverage required to pass WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree, per my comment, above. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • He's hardly a "lead subject" when he isn't mentioned until the third paragraph. The lead subject is the international flavour of the fashion scene in Milan. As for multiple sources, being credited with doing the makeup is not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. The mention in the G&M article doesn't come close to meeting the requirement of significant coverage in multiple independent sources, and notability isn't inherited by working for notable magazines and fashion houses (not to mention that at the moment only one magazine job is sourced, and none of the design house jobs are.) Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 11:41, 20 December 2011 (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.