Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Blake

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 no consensus. This has been on AFD for a month and we are pretty evenly divided in numbers and quality. Time to wrap up. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Blake

[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)

I couldn't find anything in the sources that actually prove notability. n.1) IAFD (not reliable), n.2) this one is the only one I am not sure: I can't find anything about the author and I believe this book it self is not enough to prove notability, n.3) its autobiography, n.4) i found it online here all I could find was a passing mention of his name, n.5,6,7) its autobigraphy, n.8) a very short bio in Tabernacle Baptist Church Atlanta that definitely doesn't prove notability. So, putting all together we have a passing mention on a good book, a book that I believe not being "relevant". AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG. While sources mentioned by nom, are indeed questionable, sources in Further Reading section are much better, and IMO do go over the threshold. Ipsign (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in "Further Reading" 2 articles are about a small "scandal" not really going toward notoriety, but the gaywired one looks ok. Still, I don't think that a passing mention on a good book, a book of no relevance and an article on gaywired sum up to notoriety.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't have that many articles on people of his demographic (second-career African-American clergy), so it fills a niche.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of criteria of WP:NACTOR being fulfilled. In detail: I see no evidence of significant roles in multiple notable films, large fan base, or unique contribution. Hekerui (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ONe more relist as this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

clearly fails notability guidelines for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still unsure of consensus, maybe after relisting this once more we can achieve consensus. If after this relist no additional comments are provided, will close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 08:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be secondary in-depth coverage in multiple sources about the person and they have no notable film roles. Also, the suggestion that the article should be kept just because it fills a niche is extremely questionable. Either the subject meets the requirments of notability or it doesnt. In this case it doesnt. Adamant1 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this journal article is a sustained analysis entirely focused on Blake. Between this and the book, which interprets Blake and his work at length, I think we have a pass of GNG. The range of other sources, such as the coverage of the news scandal and this extremely brief book review may be useful to flesh out the article, but those are the two that I think show notability. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 05:23, 9 June 2020 (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.