Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talalima Mobley


 * 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 moved to Draft:Talalima Mobley. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Talalima Mobley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. All the cites in the article are non-WP:RS (Twitter, blogs) or his own website (styleheirs.com). Moreover, it's an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Maybe WP:TOOSOON, but i'm not convinced. Kleuske (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In response to Kleuske argument for Article Deletion - Talalima Mobley.

Thank you kindly for your input, I'm fairly new to this realm of editing on Wikipedia, I would like to request that this page to be placed in my user space so that I can continue to make better improvements to the article in order to save it from complete deletion. In my defence, yes the cites used are from twitter or blogs, specifically my own website at StyleHeirs.com - however, the cites are meant to show proof that where I have been and the efforts I've put into building my own portfolio are legitimate. It's difficult to make a name for myself in this industry and I don't have adequate management to support my endeavours in this line of work. Please, I invite you to aid me in correcting this article and ensure that I follow each proper guideline in order to keep this article alive. The best way to contact me is at my email talamobley[at]styleheirs[dot]com if you're willing to supply any guidance for my career and to resolve the errors in this article.

Inherit Love, I AM, Talalima Mobley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talamobley (talk • contribs) 13:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Writing autobiographies, especially if notability is disputed, is still a bad idea, even if in userspace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost. Kleuske (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Further research...

WP:SELFSOURCE States the following:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

Which I know the criteria's are met with each citation, as each source definitely reflects no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The provided SELFSOURCE mainly give narratives not claims to certain people or organizations that have commissioned Talalima Mobley, myself, to write these articles about their on-stage performance or collections on my own website at StyleHeirs.com. The sources are not based on the Wikipedia article Talalima Mobley yet is only provided to give more background to the assignments Talalima Mobley has carried out by request from publicists that are employed by major record companies and design houses. The provided cites have no claims about events not directly related to the article Talalima Mobley. Lastly, the citations aren't in any way self-serving nor an exceptional claim because each review published on StyleHeirs.com has one sole purpose, to provide online content regarding specific events hosted by each artists/people or organizations.

In the WP:SELFSOURCE definition, there isn't specific verbiage that clarifies that all or each criteria should be met in order to be deemed worthy for citiaion use in an article hosted on Wikipedia. If again, I have misread or misinterpreted the WP:SELFSOURCE definition please bring that to my attention and clarify my understanding. Much apprciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talamobley (talk • contribs) 14:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You don't get it. WP:SELFSOURCE is not at issue here, it is Notability and in particular Notability (people). ~Anachronist (talk) 17:53, 28 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.