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. discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Domenick Nati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be notable. Most of the sources on this article fail to include the actual information they say they include. Of the sources for the DomNnate show, only the Aubrey O'Day source mentions "DomNnate" by name, and only the two Bill Cosby sources mention "Domenick Nati" by name (and only extremely briefly -- the articles were focused on Bill Cosby, and the radio show was hardly mentioned). The sources related to DMX do confirm that Nati is DMX's publicist, but that doesn't make Nati at all notable. The sources about Nati's television and film career are mostly unreliable and/or barely mention Nati. His IMDb page tells the clearest story: Nati simply worked as a production assistant or celebrity coordinator on a few shows/films, and played no notable part in any of them.

It's clear that Nati has been a publicist for a lot of notable people, but that doesn't make him notable. IagoQnsi (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Comment: One of Nati's clients, Bobo Norco, also very recently had an article created, and it's also up for deletion. That article has the same style of featuring a lot of sources that don't actually indicate notability or provide verification for the facts they're placed next to. User:JellyfishFilms is a contributor to both articles (primary author for Bobo Norco, and uploaded the photo for Domenick Nati). -IagoQnsi (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I reviewed the Nati's sources and they all are reliable. I find Nati to be credible and also despite IagoQnsi's claim of his client Bobo Norco have an article created, that appears to be false. Bobo Norco's article was created two years ago. It does appear that IagoQnsi has a recent personal vendettaUser:JellyfishFilms PatRoller2 (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC) — PatRoller2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *Keep Domenick Nati appears to be notable based on the sources listed. The article has a very thorough list of reputable references that validate the author's submission. WikiTorch2 talk 10:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC) — WikiTorch2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *Keep I see that this person is notable. Many very reputable sources discuss his work such as CNN The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. I also don't believe that having a client's page being up for deletion to be relevant to this discussion. JoeMahms talk 10:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC) — JoeMahms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Clerk note: IagoQnsi2, PatRoller2, JoeMahms, and WikiTorch2 are all suspected sockpuppets of JellyfishFilms; see the SPI I started for details: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JellyfishFilms. -IagoQnsi (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make that confirmed sockpuppets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Clerk note: This is another false accusation from IagoQnsi. I have no affiliation with JellyFishFilms -Wiki Torch2 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out suspected puppet alleged "clerk note". Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's very hard to go thru tons of references in this article, which was probably done intentionally, but those I see are not talking about him. He talks about someone else. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note My earlier delete note was removed by PatRoller2. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Clerk note: Arthistorian1977 and WikiTorch2 both striked out each other's comments. When someone makes a comment that is inaccurate or otherwise problematic, the best tactic is to simply reply to the comment and explain what's wrong with it; editing other people's comments can lead to confusion and fighting. I have removed both strikethroughs; let's please try to keep this discussion calm and civil. :) Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my comment was completely delete by suspected sockpuppet, who pretended to be clerk :) I do apologies if I lost a temper on this :)))). Cheers. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's a whole lot of references in the article, which at first glance makes it look like it's got plenty of sources that verify the information, but most of them don't even mention the article's subject at all and unless the subject has some alternate name that I'm unaware of, most of these sources don't belong in this article at all. Just as an example, the very first article says it's The Christian Post, but it's the Huffington Post with a completely different author, title, subject, nothing in that source is anything like what the Wikipedia article is saying. I thought maybe the URL itself had been changed by someone and that the original source was accurate so I dug through the edit history, but that ref was like that in the diff that the article was created with. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, as not one of the sources in the article has any significant coverage whatsoever (those few that even mention the article's subject at all). - Aoidh (talk) 02:35, 19 March 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.