Armand Cucciniello ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I have no love for this page or its subject, but during the course of an ANI thread I opened to combat autobiographical editing and sockpuppetry, Nyttend speedy deleted the page based on A7. This doesn't seem appropriate given that New Jersey Monthly published a pretty in-depth article about the guy, in addition to the various other sources that were cited. I'm not saying that deletion is totally unwarranted, just that there's enough evidence of notability that this warrants community input through an AfD. The deletion also interferes with the pending ANI, as non-admins can't review the article history to evaluate the conduct issues that were raised. R2 ( bleep) 18:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• List. The article contained a credible claim of significance and significant coverage in at least one reliable source, New Jersey Monthly. I agree with Ahrtoodeetoo that criterion A7 for speedy deletion should not apply, even if the article is deleted after discussion because the subject is determined not to be notable. -- Bsherr ( talk) 19:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Self-endorse. Ahrtoodeetoo hasn't even made an argument why this didn't qualify for A7, and moreover there weren't any reliable secondary sources: everything's primary sources and/or fluff like the linked magazine article (this is not a specialist publication, it's totally unsourced, and the author is a specialist on golf news). Articles must be based on secondary sources with reputations for reliability, and this had nothing. Nyttend ( talk) 19:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Nyttend, I think the issue is that, even assuming you're right about a lack of reliable sources in the article, A7 is only about whether the article has a credible claim of significance. WP:A7 says: "This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources". Speaking for myself, and assuming the same of Ahrtoodeetoo, the coverage in New Jersey Monthly is mentioned only as evidence of the credible claim of significance, not of notability. But, regardless, sources aren't necessary to assert a credible claim of significance, and the article seems to contain that. -- Bsherr ( talk) 20:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment as a non-admin it's impossible for me to determine whether this was proper since I can't see the history. SportingFlyer talk 19:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Temp-restored for review. — Cryptic 19:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you! SportingFlyer talk
• Restore, send to AfD Per WP:CCOS: "If the references within the article discuss the subject or provide a possible claim of significance as discussed in #1 above, then too the A7, A9 and A11 tags should not be applied." There's a reference which covers the subject significantly, and while I'm a clear AfD delete vote, AfD would be the proper process here. SportingFlyer talk 20:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn A7, send to AfD. Saying the sources were not reliable, or were primary, is an argument to delete at AfD. WP:A7 requires that the article make no credible claim as to why the subject is notable. The article said he was a US diplomat and a spokesman for the US embassy. It cited several sources in major news media. Maybe you don't think the sources are reliable, but A7 specifically says it's not about reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn A7, send to AfD maybe the article should be deleted, but it doesn't seem to meet the A7 or for that matter any other speedy deletion requirements Nil Einne ( talk) 12:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn A7 Credible claims made, might even meet WP:N. Hobit ( talk) 16:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn A7, send to AfD: claim(s) of notability present. Yngvadottir ( talk) 20:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn A7 the text made claims of significance and cited press coverage. A7 shouldn't be applied based on the standards of sourcing, unless it's something very obvious. If an article contains something which even might be seen as significant coverage in reliable sources then it should go through AfD or PROD. Hut 8.5 07:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply