Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Ford (blogger)

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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Ford (blogger)

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

Article about apparently non-notable subject, relying mainly on the use of self-published sources Avaya1 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Luke Ford has been well known both in the porn world and in American Orthodox Jewish circles. I'm a little puzzled by the stated grounds for this AfD, given that the article already cites substantial coverage about Ford in Wired[1][2], the Los Angeles Daily News[3], and Salon[4]. Quick searches also find a cover story [5][6] and other coverage about him in The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles [7], and an unflattering portrayal in The New York Times[8]. There are passages in this article that would benefit from editorial attention, but his notability is evident. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep albeit a pile on, based on User:Arxiloxos. I have looked at the article but not checked the references myself. Aoziwe (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As others have noted, the article cites a wide variety of reliable sources that establish notability and a Google search shows many more. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided, meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets GNG requirements despite deficiencies in article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2017 (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.