Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Joseph


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 00:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Audrey Joseph

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable--doesn't meet WP:LIVING. There are seemingly no second or third-party sources visible in the top 50 search engine results for the subject's name, other than what is potentially a self-provided biography on the local city website. Additionally, it cites no references at all and it appears to include original research. Lastly, the original author's userid "Oh Audi" might imply that it is autobiographical. Doughnut4020 (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've read quite a few stories about her and she's had a long long career in the entertainment industry. I think first as some sort of record producer in the early disco era then producing events and running two or possibly more of the largest dance clubs on the west coast; as far as I know she's also a city commissioner on the Entertainment Commission. I think she also producers stages at the city's largest LGBT events - which, by default, are also the largest LGBT events on the US West Coast. This, this, these, these, these, these, and these should quell any misgivings. And there are quite a few SF media I didn't even check.  Her profile at the city's website should be a clue of her notability as well - she's even holding a proclamation from the California Assembly in the picture.  -- Banj e  b oi   15:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete an entirely unsourced BLP? (As in not one source) and apparent conflict of interest to boot? What is there to discuss. It's not clear to me if there are any sources that might make an article about this person possible, but this article is garbage and should go. if someone wants to work to write a real article with actual sources, that effort can be assessed on its merits if and when it happens.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, just wondering of the hundred or so sources I posted above you don't see any of those as helping establish notability? And BLP isn't a reason to delete an entire article that is true, notable and sourceable, ergo fixable; it's a policy to help guide how to present content. I'm not seeing anything that is so negative it needs to be removed - I'm not sure if any of is negative in fact. And nom's statement the original author's userid "Oh Audi" might imply that it is autobiographical is a great example of bad faith and you've just added more of the same by suggesting were now at COI. I see you're busy wholesale removing information so I'll wait until you've moved on to restore and source it all back. -- Banj e  b oi   16:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're stating your intention to "restore" uncited/unsourced information into a BLP? Good luck with that. As for COI -- brand new user account that writes a long, laudatory article, has no other edits and has a username that sounds like a nickname for the users first name? Thinking there's likely a conflict of interest isn't bad faith -- it's common sense.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm stating my intent to repair what I see as your damage to the article thus restoring accurate and verifiable content. Per WP:AGF we don't jump from 0 to COI without good reason, and in this case we have little to nothing but a suspicion which fails the WP:Duck test. -- Banj e  b oi   19:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of a wall of "cites" that at first glance look useless to me and whining about "good faith" owed to SPA's that write articles about themselves, why don't you include sourced, specific information in this article you want to save. Everything i've looked at just mentions that she owned a club, or promoted a party, etc... The 6 (not "100s") of cites you provided up above look like weak sauce to me. I found you accusaion that removing unsourced material from a BLP, providing it's first (and so far only) inline citations from what i could verify, creating a reflist, and cleaning up its advertorial language as "damage" you need a new hobby.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bali ultimate, please, your being uncivil to almost everyone involved in this. Above I provide links to 87 sources, not 6. And assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Claiming COI without compelling evidence against the article creator is unhelpful. -- Banj e  b oi   18:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I've turned up this, which is a full article devoted to this person, containing a biography. I'll add it to the article; I think that, along with the weight of the other less focused sources, it indicates notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yup, that's a biography by a newspaper staff writer so it's a reliable source.  In other news, WP:COI is not grounds for deletion.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - many good sources exist, and have been found already. This is a perfect example of WP:BEFORE - I found this on Google news. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As the nominator, I made good-faith effort to follow WP:BEFORE, including looking for sources as indicated in my original nomination, making sure that the article was tagged with a question about notability as well as the existing reference issues, noting the issue on the talk page, etc. Please note that the Google News article that you cited didn't exist until the day before my nomination and I suspect it was not even indexed when I did my search. I agree that the links provided by Banjeboi et al. are obviously very helpful in establishing references. Doughnut4020 (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw this as good faith, personally I just missed the talkpage comment. And she is mainly discussed in obscure industry publications about clubs/entertainment and LGBT media which generally aren't in google news search. -- Banj e  b oi   05:40, 31 March 2009 (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.