Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Antin

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. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Antin

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

My search for additional sources did not come with any solid ones. Here we have all non-reliable sources. A clip from the reality TV show that he was in is a primary source, so is the show's own website. IMDb is not a reliable source. We have in the article no, none, zip relialbe secondary third party sources, when we need multiple. Doing notable peoples hair does not make one notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising for a trivial and unconvincing career will then trivial and unconvincing sources. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major role in two notable TV series, and a simple search shows he has been the subject of multiple coverage in sources like the Los Angeles Times [1][2], Pop Matters [3], Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service [4][5],WWD [6], Bangor Daily News [7], Los Angeles Daily News [8], New York [9], Paper [10], People [11], Entertainment Weekly [12], USA Today [13]. You couldn't pay me to watch this stuff, but his notability seems apparent.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arxiloxos, Thanks for the sources. I am working on the article and did not use Pop Matters, Paper, Entertainment Weekly, and USA Today because these do not seem to fit as mainstream news sources (nor does People, for that matter, but I see that it's commonly used as a source). But if I'm missing something about that, please say so.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, needs a bit of a cleanup, but other than that a notable person. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that right now it sounds very promotional - and it's also possibly original research. It's unfortunate that it's only source is IMdB. I am going to work on it and see what I can dig up, starting with the sources provide above. As it is right now, I am not prepared to vote to keep it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have been wavering between weak keep and keep. He seems to have had the strongest career between the late 1990s and about 2007 or so, based upon press coverage. But, I still think that there is enough there in terms of his career as a celebrity stylist, hair care line developer and businessman, and TV personality to warrant the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources, such as those added to the article after it was nominated for deletion and sources presented above in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[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.