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.
This previously was discussed for deletion with no consensus. The claim that there are enough reliable sources ignores what the sources are. A few are actual press releases, like the one from GLAAD, that are clearly not reliable. Other are local papers which I don't think in some cases met our requirements for reliable sources, and in any event they are covering extremely local events from a human interest perspective that is not the type of coverage that constitutes notability. Wikipedia is not meant to be an aggregate collection of articles on everyone who has ever gotten covered by weak local news stories, and that is all that exist on Aizumi.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The question is not weather the information is reliable. Wikipedia is meant to cover notable people, and that means that they are cared about enough by reliable sources to be written up. Advocacy publications can not be used to show notability in any way. Thus sources can be used that can not be counting towards reliability, and 1 source is never enough to pass GNG.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Sportsfan 1234: I notice that you added the identical comment to 11 AFDs in 3 minutes, however there's a lot of difference between the articles. I'm not sure how you would have chance to look at each article and evaluate the references, and sources provided above. Can you explain why you don't consider the provided references as meeting GNG?
Nfitz (
talk)
20:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
DeleteJohn Pack Lambert pointed out that the GLAAD advocacy page, while it may be a reliable source for certain info, can't count toward
notability. With only one dedicated piece from a reliable source, subject lacks notability = Delete.
Tapered (
talk)
22:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
That other source above is a junk source. The article is in a issue specific weekly, which is not really a reliable source. Beyond that is is an issue advocacy article that does not provide indepth coverage of Aizumi.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm blind, searched for it in the existing sources, was looking at dates retrieved not article dates, mea culpa. With that being the only source, I think it's hard to say GNG is met. ---
PageantUpdater (
talk) 00:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC) As per the discussion below, I'm going to strike out both votes and stay neutral. ---
PageantUpdater (
talk)
02:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)reply
They're definitely more promising, but I have seen plenty of articles be deleted with similar sources as not meeting GNG. I don't necessarily agree with that, it's more like I literally can't figure out where to stand on what does and doesn't constitute a
WP:RS for the purposes of GNG. I mean it seems to me some editors have made up their own rules & interpretations of that and I literally can't make head nor tail of it. ---
PageantUpdater (
talk)
02:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)reply
CommentNfitz has produced 4 ostensible supporting references. The Northwest Asian Weekly is seemingly reliable, BUT the mention in the article is limited, hence
trivial. Nichi Bei and Infotrak are not reliable sources. The East Caroline paper is a university sheet, and can be considered reliable for university and local reportage, but not reliable to bolster notability for a Wikipedia
biography. The sources fail to bolster
notability = delete.
Tapered (
talk)
06:37, 10 March 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.
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.
This previously was discussed for deletion with no consensus. The claim that there are enough reliable sources ignores what the sources are. A few are actual press releases, like the one from GLAAD, that are clearly not reliable. Other are local papers which I don't think in some cases met our requirements for reliable sources, and in any event they are covering extremely local events from a human interest perspective that is not the type of coverage that constitutes notability. Wikipedia is not meant to be an aggregate collection of articles on everyone who has ever gotten covered by weak local news stories, and that is all that exist on Aizumi.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The question is not weather the information is reliable. Wikipedia is meant to cover notable people, and that means that they are cared about enough by reliable sources to be written up. Advocacy publications can not be used to show notability in any way. Thus sources can be used that can not be counting towards reliability, and 1 source is never enough to pass GNG.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Sportsfan 1234: I notice that you added the identical comment to 11 AFDs in 3 minutes, however there's a lot of difference between the articles. I'm not sure how you would have chance to look at each article and evaluate the references, and sources provided above. Can you explain why you don't consider the provided references as meeting GNG?
Nfitz (
talk)
20:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
DeleteJohn Pack Lambert pointed out that the GLAAD advocacy page, while it may be a reliable source for certain info, can't count toward
notability. With only one dedicated piece from a reliable source, subject lacks notability = Delete.
Tapered (
talk)
22:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
That other source above is a junk source. The article is in a issue specific weekly, which is not really a reliable source. Beyond that is is an issue advocacy article that does not provide indepth coverage of Aizumi.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm blind, searched for it in the existing sources, was looking at dates retrieved not article dates, mea culpa. With that being the only source, I think it's hard to say GNG is met. ---
PageantUpdater (
talk) 00:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC) As per the discussion below, I'm going to strike out both votes and stay neutral. ---
PageantUpdater (
talk)
02:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)reply
They're definitely more promising, but I have seen plenty of articles be deleted with similar sources as not meeting GNG. I don't necessarily agree with that, it's more like I literally can't figure out where to stand on what does and doesn't constitute a
WP:RS for the purposes of GNG. I mean it seems to me some editors have made up their own rules & interpretations of that and I literally can't make head nor tail of it. ---
PageantUpdater (
talk)
02:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)reply
CommentNfitz has produced 4 ostensible supporting references. The Northwest Asian Weekly is seemingly reliable, BUT the mention in the article is limited, hence
trivial. Nichi Bei and Infotrak are not reliable sources. The East Caroline paper is a university sheet, and can be considered reliable for university and local reportage, but not reliable to bolster notability for a Wikipedia
biography. The sources fail to bolster
notability = delete.
Tapered (
talk)
06:37, 10 March 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.