Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Daigle-Orians

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 keep‎. Low weighting IP votes as all the random votes are anti while the balance of argument favours keep including the best source analysis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Daigle-Orians

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article had lots of puffery in it, which I've worked to remove. However, it seems the major thing this person is known for is their book and a social media account. They've received some passing mentions for both of these, but there has not been consistent secondary sources about them. For instance, many of the citations are only passing mentions with little in-depth content. Ultimately, it does not appear that this person currently meets the standards for WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR, so this should be deleted in accordance with Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Sexuality and gender.
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. Coverage in newspapers [1], book review [2] and here [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to clean up the article, but there's so much that's just based in passing mentions, which is why I also don't think this person meets the Wikipedia:GNG guidelines. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Theatre, Louisiana, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The artilcle says that they wrote a non-notable book, a college play and "several other plays". How is this person notable? See WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, I have neither found nor been shown anything that indicates that this person is notable according to Wikipedia standards. Paul H. (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG per above sourcing, also a PW review —siro χ o 07:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. One Publishers Weekly review isn't enough (and another by a local librarian doesn't help either). There are a few interviews, but they don't do much for establishing notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One book with sparse reviews isn't going to be enough for WP:AUTHOR. But I think the Geeks Out, Philly Gay News, Hartford Courant, and Good Morning America references count as SIGCOV towards WP:GNG. Some of these are interviews but I'm not one of these believers in the theory that choosing to format a story as an interview rather than as prose somehow magically causes it to fail to count; they are independently-published stories that in these instances include in-depth information about the subject. The last two are for their Ace Dad column but the others (and the book reviews) are not, so I don't think there's an issue with WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought some of those were very much a passing mention that would not move towards Wikipedia:GNG. There seems like there's a lot of puffery with this article even now, which is why I put it in the AfD queue. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough WP:SIGCOV as pointed out above by User:David Eppstein and User:Oaktree b. They were also quoted in this Cosmopolitan article about asexuality and apparently they were also nominated in the British LGBT awards 2023. Raladic (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't a significant award. It's not something widely recognized, so it won't be something that can contribute to the guidelines under Wikipedia:GNG in this case. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is well known in England and it does have its own Wikipedia article British LGBT Awards, so it is notable and can contribute to the WP:ANYBIO per the guidelines. Raladic (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This is such a week article and doesn't meet the guidelines for significant coverage or notability. Seriously, how did this article -- with all of the puffery -- get approved for Wiki? 2600:1009:B06B:ACE6:0:4E:C4DE:D401 (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC) — 2600:1009:B06B:ACE6:0:4E:C4DE:D401 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. I've heard of this person because I live in Central Ohio, but I'd def agree that this is a delete, since they don't actually meet significant or notable criterions. They've done some stuff (like authoring a book). But all of this is under the WP:Mill, as someone else noted; it's not notable. For the WP:AUTHOR guideline, they also fail. Like I said, they wrote a book, but it's DEFINITELY not something that achieves the level of notability under that. In short, this should totally be deleted from Wikipedia. 75.118.97.206 (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC) — 75.118.97.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, likely a pass at AUTHOR, reviews in Publisher's Weekly [4], a brief discussion in WaPo [5], and buzzsfeed, which is less RS [6], I think we have more than enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references in the article and above don't seem to quite meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree per nominator. Article also seems to fail WP:GNG, and there's not really much information that seems to indicate importance or notability. 147.0.5.247 (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC) — 147.0.5.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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.