Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frankie Quiroz


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Frankie Quiroz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is written in highly [|promotional tone] and the topic is lacking [|significant media mentions in reliable source.]

Articles from Hindustan times & Deccan herald that are used in citation are clearly marked as PR. https://www.deccanherald.com/brandspot/pr-spot/from-selling-shirts-to-owning-tuned-in-tokyo-frankie-quiroz-throws-light-on-his-entrepreneurial-journey-790995.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/brand-post/frankie-quiroz-s-inspiring-journey-fuels-tuned-in-tokyo/story-wqmouTL2z0B3bioOELpWBI.html

5th citation is leading to 404 error https://www.news9.com/story/41069134/tuned-in-tokyo-llc-shares-inspiring-story-of-mr-frankie-quiroz

Other source of media mentions are not reliable. The topic is not notable enough and lacking significant media mention in reliable source.

"Frankie Quiroz is a serial entrepreneur and brand creator who has successfully built 8-Figure brands" The article is written in highly promotion tone and not suitable for the encyclopedia Britishtea567 (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC) — Britishtea567 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG. No significant coverage in any reliable sources that I can find. I did find an archived copy of the reference giving the 404 error and it is just another press release. I'm seeing nothing but self-published sources and marketing "interviews" in my searches.  C Thomas3   (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural close The nominator has less than ten edits to their name and is not even confirmed yet. This is a most curious seventh edit. ——  SN  54129  16:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD has been blocked for sockpuppetry. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 17:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment on G5 eligibility The article was created by a sock—User:Wesleyner7—so should be eligible to be deleted under G5. Unless, of course it has substantial edits by others. User:Bbb23 argues that it is not eligible for such deletion, presumably because it does indeed contain edits by others. But substantial edits? The first 11 edits are by the sock. Then an editor disambiguates a link and sorts categories. Another editor adds a short description and a maintenance tag. The next seven edits are by the same sock master, Wesleyner7, using another account. Another editor adds a speedy tag; another editor declines it. The next three edits are adding this AfD nomination, and then a notability tag. Now, User:FreezerBernie makes some actual prose edits (the first time this has happened from a non-sock, note). A bot, meanwhile, dates the maintenance tag. And that's the complete editing history until the G5 tagging/decline.So it appears that the only non-sock/maintenance edits to the article were FreezerBernie's, and they comprise 3.5% of the total article history. Substantial, not.  ——  SN  54129  12:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the above should not be taken as condoning BritishTea's edits: left a note on their page suggesting they are a sock. This seems a logical assessment. We are in the curious position of a possible sock AfD'ing an acrtual sock's article.  ——  SN  54129  13:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete cloutnews.com, deccanherald.com, english.newstracklive.com, hindustantimes.com, mid-day.com, news9.com, thenewspocket.com, thestatesman.com and tokyodailynews.com are all completely unreliable for entertainment news and will publish just about any press release about even the most minimally "famous" "celebrity". Let's not forget that the main business of these "influencers" is promotion. Vexations (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete; when an article has sources like this, clearly someone's been looking for anything and everything, and it's obvious that no actually reliable sources are available. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2020 (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.