Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Cogliano (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 13:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Cogliano

[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)

Non-notable individual, sourced almost entirely to blackhat SEO and nonsense vanity spam/pay to publish sites. SANTADICAE🎅 11:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When an article on a movie composer is so convinced that the works he composed for are non-notable that it does not even bother to name them, this is a strong sign that the person is in fact non-notable. The analysis by the nominator is good, and there are no indications of major changes since last July that would indicate this now meets notability guidelines when it did not then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I encourage everyone (if you have some extra time) to read the downright bizarre proceedings at the first AfD for this musician, in which his article was deleted about six months ago. You will see clearly that the musician has supporters who claim to have no direct connection to him while desperately trying to cram promotional statements about him onto Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One thing has changed since the last AfD: Cagliano has expanded from TV/film music composer to indie recording artist. The same problem remains though. His list of TV/film works is nothing but a personal resume repeating his fleeting mentions in the list of credits at the end of a program. Most sources talking about his works in general are merely directories; recent articles about his 2021 EP are unreliable (and probably pre-paid) promotional sites. Kudos to him for building a viable career creating background music, but that doesn't mean he qualifies for an encyclopedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My {{prod}} on this was declined by someone who made up a non-existent criterion (which they're technically entitled to do; the prod rules are that the template can be removed for any reason, not necessarily a valid one) but my reasoning still applies. ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your accusation at all Iridescent. Deletion policy is explicit that an article that has ever been discussed at AfD is not eligible for PROD (WP:PRODNOM). This article subject has an existing AfD, and thus per policy, it is not eligible for PROD. I would expect an editor with 15 years of experience and who nominates stuff for deletion to be familiar with deletion policy, and not to accuse others of making up absurd bullshit when you're the one who is incorrect. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've looked at the new sources and agree that this is textbook blackhat SEO. I was strongly in support of deletion last year and my stance has not changed, despite the addition of new 'sources' and new 'claims' to notability. Thank you to the above contributors for their diligence. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above and nomination. I read through the previous AfD and it made my head spin. I don't need to add more than what's above. Spf121188 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2022 (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.