Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Codikow

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Codikow

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

This person does not meet WP:BASIC notability requirements, namely coverage substantially about him in reliable sources. He does have passing mention, and interviews and statements where the actual topic of coverage is not himself, but his contemporaries. This subject may meet some subjective understandings of WP:ANYBIO, but not without WP:INHERITing a great deal of note. JFHJr (㊟) 06:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable; I prodded it, I don't think the removal was justified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely lacking in WP:42. Qworty (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the evidence of him being notable comes from things that fail WP:INHERIT; article also seems a tad promotional as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I deprodded this because prodding is supposed to be reserved for uncontroversial, obvious deletion cases, and this isn't one of those. This guy is a well-known figure in the entertainment business, and the article has multiple references, including a substantial PBS piece; more potential sources are visible through simple searches; and its editing history indicates that good faith editors have made serious efforts to strengthen the article. Such articles deserve the serious scruntiny of a formal AfD; they don't belong at prod. I also note that additional potential facts that might support Codikow's notability have been deleted from the article, when they might just as easily have been sourced: for example, Codikow's personal and professional relationship with Rosanna Arquette, which ultimately included not only their widely-reported engagement but also his producing her excellent documentary Searching for Debra Winger. (For example, there's a paywalled December 7, 2001 USA Today article, with the fetching title "Arquette bares artistic spirit", that appears to contain some discussion about Codikow and this film, although the paywall keeps me from seeing most of it.) Similarly his role in creating the Vans Warped Tour [1] was cut rather than sourced.

Now, having said all that, Qworty may ultimately be right that Codikow lacks the necessary WP:42 to support an article with his name as the title. I note that we also don't have an article about his even-better-known former law partner Rosemary Carroll. C'est la vie: Wikipedia's coverage of business subjects can be uneven, perhaps inevitably so given our appropriate aversion to self-promotional articles and the way our sourcing requirements work with respect to business media. But WP:PRESERVE might suggest there are some other appropriate steps that might be taken with some of this content. I will be interested to see if anyone else has thoughts in this regard. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Highbeam document linked does, at first glance, indicate Codikow was someone who started the Vans tour. Everything else I've seen says Codikow was one of about four or five founders, most of whom are not notable at all, and he not the front man in any way for the tour. In fact, it's amazingly difficult to parse out how important Codikow's contribution actually was. Reliable sources tend to indicate he "co-conceptualized" it, whatever that means. His creative input here, and possibly in the Highbeam article, are blown way out of proportion. If Codikow is actually the topic of coverage due to his relationships with Arquette and Carroll, then that'd be one thing. But everything I've found is actually about someone else. JFHJr (㊟) 16:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability check as to substantial coverage; assertions to the contrary seem to fail the WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS test. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTINHERITED. Yworo (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable. Merely founding a law firm is not notable. Being sued in a tangential fashion in a Marilyn Manson lawsuit is not notable. Being engaged to Rosanna Arquette might be notable for some people, but it's more appropriately a sentence on Arquette's page, and maybe not even that. Being a one-time manager or a producer of a minor television show is not notable. As stated above, these accomplishments are just about Codikow's involvement in what other people have done. This is just a vanity page for self-promotion. WP:NOTINHERITED. Zacaparum (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Orange Mike and nom statement, both of which I find persuasive. Lord Roem (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2012 (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.