Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiden Aizumi (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. Essentially, not enough sources were put forward to satisfy everyone that the article could be improved. If anybody wants it restored to draft, ping me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Aiden Aizumi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * Keep. I checked the sources and they're all reliable and about the subject. Meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The San Gabriel Valley Tribune is a reliable source. Although the GLAAD resource is an advocacy website, for the mundane information it provides for this article, I argue that is a reliable source. The HuffPo article is not reliable, as it was written by the subject's mother. Enough to meet WP:N. Tapered (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Keep - Tribune is good. GLAAD might be good. But here's another newspaper . That's 2. That's GNG met. Might be others Nfitz (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete John 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)
 * What about the other one I pointed out above? Nfitz (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Anyway GNG requires "multiple" sources, that means at least 3 under almost every circumstance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you consider Northwest Asian Weekly a junk source? There is nothing in WP:RELIABLE precluding weekly newspapers. Not in depth, it mentions him 16 times, with the last ⅔ of the article being in depth? Also, 3 not required - 2 is normally fine in an AFD discussion. Still, here is a third. Here's a fourth. Here's a fifth. Nfitz (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep There's also an LA Times article from 2010, currently stuck behind a paywall but the preview seems to show significant coverage. Add to the others and that's GNG met.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * What about the other sources I provide above - 2, 3, 4, and 5? Nfitz (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Nfitz 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)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  04:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON; coverage shows that the subject is not notable just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Currently, not enough in-depth coverage to show they warrant an article and pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.