Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Papa Joe Aviance: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:29, 24 January 2018 editSenegambianamestudy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,176 edits comment← Previous edit Revision as of 19:09, 24 January 2018 edit undoSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,777 edits Relisting discussion (XFDcloser)Next edit →
Line 2: Line 2:
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}


:{{la|Papa Joe Aviance}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) :{{la|Papa Joe Aviance}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
:({{Find sources AFD|Papa Joe Aviance}}) :({{Find sources AFD|Papa Joe Aviance}})
Non-notable individual lacking notability beyond ]. Subject is known for losing weight. No evidence of being a notable musical artist. Although he has appeared on TV, none of this appears to support notability. ] (]) 01:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Non-notable individual lacking notability beyond ]. Subject is known for losing weight. No evidence of being a notable musical artist. Although he has appeared on TV, none of this appears to support notability. ] (]) 01:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Line 26: Line 26:
*'''Delete''' as per nom's rationale of ]. Even coverage of that is pretty scant. Some folks do take their 15 minutes of fame and manage to parlay it into a career during which they do rise to the level of notability. This is not one of them. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC) *'''Delete''' as per nom's rationale of ]. Even coverage of that is pretty scant. Some folks do take their 15 minutes of fame and manage to parlay it into a career during which they do rise to the level of notability. This is not one of them. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
:* '''Comment''' I disagree, and actually agree with CultureCouture. He was notable first as an artist which precipitated his weight loss which also received plenty of coverage. There are plenty of sources cited and all I'm seeing is I don't like it or lazy nomination as I have seen before with the nominator of this article since I have had a running with them in numerous articles where they ignored ]. Even if we are to go with your (and the nominator's) one event rationale, a separate article can still be created according to policy as ] (]) 16:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC) :* '''Comment''' I disagree, and actually agree with CultureCouture. He was notable first as an artist which precipitated his weight loss which also received plenty of coverage. There are plenty of sources cited and all I'm seeing is I don't like it or lazy nomination as I have seen before with the nominator of this article since I have had a running with them in numerous articles where they ignored ]. Even if we are to go with your (and the nominator's) one event rationale, a separate article can still be created according to policy as ] (]) 16:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />'''Relisting comment:''' Some analysis of the sources would clarify which side of the argument is policy base. Thanks.<br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>]]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->

Revision as of 19:09, 24 January 2018

Papa Joe Aviance

Papa Joe Aviance (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)

Non-notable individual lacking notability beyond WP:1EVENT. Subject is known for losing weight. No evidence of being a notable musical artist. Although he has appeared on TV, none of this appears to support notability. reddogsix (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 09:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep He was notable enough for them to have him on their shows and talked about him in detail in RS. All I'm seeing here is I don't like it or can't be bothered so delete. I'm also very concerned about the nominator's nomination habit. Going through his log, one finds that he nominate articles on the same day they were created, and instead of adding cats to uncategorized new articles, he rather tag them. This is frowned upon by Wikipedians.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Senegambianamestudy - You obliviously do not understand the criteria for inclusion into Misplaced Pages. It is based on the application of valid references as defined by Misplaced Pages. It has nothing to do with "real-world" popularity. Additionally, I do not believe the references meet the criteria for inclusion. On a side note, if you feel the user's nomination does not reflect the standards of Misplaced Pages, I suggest you issue a complaint in Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism or whatever noticeboard you deem applicable. reddogsix (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll tell you what I don't understand: You tagging newly created articles within minutes or few hours of their creation thereby disrupting the project and driving new editors away; not even bothering to find sources; tagging uncategorised new articles when you could have simply added one cat (the time and energy you spent tagging an uncat articles, you could have spent it adding a cat). I can go on forever, but let's not. Trying to find any meaningful edits you have made to the project other than tagging is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Senegambianamestudy - </sigh> Again, please read my prior comment. Also, do you think making comments such as, "Trying to find any meaningful edits you have made to the project other than tagging is like trying to find a needle in a haystack," assumes good faith or does not meet the criteria in WP:UNCIVIL or WP:UIC? reddogsix (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Of course we should always assume good faith. However when this becomes a habit going by one's "edit" history, then obviously there is a problem. WP:DRIVEBY without making any effort to improve the article is certainly not helpful to the project. Biting newbies with silly tags within minutes of creating an article which has not even been developed yet causes them to give up and drives them away. This is what you've been doing for years going by your edit history. The facts are the facts, and we can't claim WP:AGF when the facts are staring us right in the face. You want people to assume good faith but you don't want to afford the same to newbies? You can't have it both ways. I rather not derail this discussion any further with silly comments back and forth, so knock yourself out and don't forget to turn the lights off on your way out. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some analysis of the sources would clarify which side of the argument is policy base. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 19:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Papa Joe Aviance: Difference between revisions Add topic