Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovely Peaches


 * 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 __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Not only a problem of notability, but most of this material is a BLP violation. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Lovely Peaches

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

non-notable and poorly sourced, see WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPREMOVE. This may be suitable for speedy delete. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree that this is a BLP bomb. Reviewed the sources on Google News and they are almost all gossip sources. Fails GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only reliable source cited is Cinemaholic and I quite agree that this particular citation falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP. It also would not come close to significant coverage of the article subject - it's only a few sentences and does not cover them in any depth making it WP:ROUTINE coverage rather than of any significance. Other sources include self produced primary sources such as links to Youtube, Spotify and Reddit, none of which are appropriate for using in a BLP other than to source non-controversial facts, and they certainly do not lend to an argument of notability. The other primary source within the article is Distractify, a source which at best is only somewhat reliable. It focuses on celebrity gossip (See todays headline: How Rich is King Charles) and not what I can consider a reliable source in which coverage can connote a level of notability.


 * One reliable source (Insider) does cover an allegation of animal cruelty and child abuse, however per WP:CRIME it is not even appropriate to truly discuss these in a BLP unless there is evidence a court has convicted them of the crime. The articles themselves pertain little to the article subject and instead focus on gossip, rumours, and allegations rather than detailed coverage of the subject's background, notability, works, or life. On the whole this is just some Youtuber who's antics attracted a little media attention - they are not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article.


 * I think the introduction of the background within the article sums it up entirely: Little is known about Johnson's early life or family background, as she has not disclosed much information about her personal life. TLDR: There simply is not enough to write about this person, likely because she is not notable. No other appropriate sources connoting notability able to be located. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to the poor quality of the sourcing, and also has clear WP:BLP issues, which per WP:DEL-REASON is also grounds for deletion. --Tristario (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree with User:MaxnaCarta that clickbait articles are not significant coverage. I also note that the subject does not meet any of the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: non-notable Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Please can an admin properly close this article ASAP if possible as a flagrant BLP violation for this non-notable person. I have removed all the unsourced information, criminal allegations without conviction; and information citing unreliable sources, as it should not have stayed up as long as it did, but what is remaining probably shouldn't stand either. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2023 (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.