Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teale Coco


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Teale Coco
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another user attempted to nominate this for deletion but didn't do it it properly. This page clearly fails WP:GNG. Multiple WP:SPA trying to keep the page alive with spam links. Likely WP:SOCKS. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * NOTE the below text was moved from Articles for deletion/Teale Coco (2nd nomination) which was opened by mistake....


 * Delete - Can not find any notability other than advertorials placed by single purpose accounts by user:Sspsspsspssp,  user:Bite-power and   user:Highpriestess369 all which have apparently (I think COI's), especially the latter who is apparently  (I believe) the subject herself who dosen't declare  any COI  but is currently trying to upload images to Wikimedia Commons and asking (there) why are they getting deleated. Due to the lack of notability,  this is article  is for self promotion only. Suggest deletion  as to not encourage WP to become another linkin  which we have to check and waist time on looking for reliable references only to find non.--Aspro (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * hello! i have no association with these accounts, i am merely trying to change information to correct information about myself and upload my OWN image. as someone had written my wrong measurements (height). (Confirmed sock of creator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highpriestess369 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * — Highpriestess369 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * i have now uploaded a tweet to prove that i am infact the person at question and I can verify my email address to also prove so. sorry, i am new to wikipedia thanks! (Confirmed sock of creator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highpriestess369 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * — Highpriestess369 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Teale has a large following of people with creditable sources and is consider a "Notability (people)" by wikipedia terms. fans are likely to make profiles to add to the page for purely this purpose. there is entries and edits from numerous others contributing to this page. wikipedia defines a notable person as: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." with over 22 links of creditable sourced articles and examples of her work i see not how there is no "notability" to her. wikipedia also states: "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." which she is considered by many sources. (Confirmed sock of creator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmtreebandit (talk • contribs) 03:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * — Palmtreebandit (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Article reads like a resume - definitely promotional, but that alone is not grounds for deletion - it can be rewritten.  Having fans is not grounds for deletion.  Independent secondary sources are very few, and none in the main stream media that I can easily find.  Looks like potential article material, but TOOSOON.   Aoziwe (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete in my long experience in WP, single purpose editors have a definite conflict of interest. The sources are not convincing as they merely verify she held roles. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Highpriestess369 and Palmtreebandit are ✅ sock puppets of Sspsspsspssp. See Sockpuppet investigations/Sspsspsspssp.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and improve though I'm open to persuasion on a delete. Subject has significant coverage cited from at least three WP:RS: Vogue (magazine), i-D and W (magazine), so the article passes WP:BASIC. Now that the sockpuppets have been blocked, maybe my efforts at cleanup and WP:NPOV will stop getting repeatedly overwritten with self-promotional crap. Wikishovel (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Let us draw a line under this and just delete. This individual may one-day become notable. She appears to have avant-garde attitude which I admire but as of this date  is not notable in an encyclopedic sense. If she goes on, to rise above the thousands of others (that also have mentions  in fashion magazine),   and becomes notable - we will create and article for her! In the mean time, we are having to examining her and her sock puppet edits, which is thus wasting editors  time on a just anther hopeful wannabe who creates articles about themselves.  Delete for now  and let time and 'proven' talent sort it out .--Aspro (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I take your point about maintenance, but even so, that's not a valid reason for deletion per policy. We have lots of articles that are sockpuppetry warzones, but there are remedies for that, including page protection where necessary. The three WP:RS cites I noted above aren't passing mentions - they're substantial articles about her, in well-known national fashion magazines. Wouldn't you agree that the article already meets WP:BASIC? Wikishovel (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep I spotted the Vogue article too and it and a couple of others moved me to my weak above.  I might be persuaded to to a weak keep.  I actually found the potential in the article interesting, but it needs a lot of work, and some NPOV, no COI, etc., but I am sticking with a weak delete at this time.   Aoziwe (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Further Comment:  @ Wikishovel ”not a valid reason for deletion per policy.” With Coco's persistences,  tenacity and dedication to building her own image, shows that she, may, one-day,  will not have to mange her own  article but will have it all done for her by other editors and not herself, because she has  become  worthy of her own encyclopedic entry.  Yet, WP is not a crystal ball.  Currently however, her activities are  draining free  WP & WC  resources to promote herself. Example:  She exhibits a charm of using WP & WC   editors  free time to promote herself – to the detriment of other encyclopedia articles we 'could'  be working on. Why should WP  need a policy for common sense.--Aspro (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia runs on policy, and because we do have policy on notability,and because everybody's got their own take on what "common sense" might mean? You still haven't explained how she fails WP:BASIC. Wikishovel (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @ Wikishovel. Not getting at you because I can see and appreciate where you are coming from,  along with  other editors. 
 * Yet, this is now getting  so fishy that it  smells as such:
 * User:Highpriestess369 & User: Highpriestess369 on WC
 * User:Sspsspsspssp & on WC
 * User:Bitepower
 * As you know, Vogue is a magazine that needs something in every issue to print. It is cheaper to feature wannabes (and they feature lots) -are you suggesting that everyone that is featured is entitlement to a WP article?
 * As Janelle Okwodu of Vogue says: “As a trained photographer—she was scouted a year into her photography degree” ... err,...  so why is Coco uploading such poor images?  I admire Coco for her avant-garde stance but this stinks of amateurism by a non notable with no  RS yet. Every which way you look at it, she is taking advantage of WP editors to enhance her career without giving anything back -other than an article about herself. Whose the fool? People who  have grandchildren know the answer to this. They have see advantage taking  – twice over. Just 'delete' until real notability arises.--Aspro (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have not given a single policy reason for deletion. You have refused to explain how she fails WP:BASIC, talking instead about "drawing a line", "common sense", the wisdom of grandparents, and previous abuses by blocked sockpuppets. None of these are valid reasons for deletion. Wikishovel (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. At least 3 in-depth decent sources is enough to meet WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment:  Don't agree that the references meet WP:GNG. As is said above, I hope that one day she becomes notable enough for a WP article  but as of present these reference do nothing to raise her head above her contemporaries.  GNG also states that “Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability”.  So far, we only have her self promotional edits by herself and apparent socks (which have all been blocked including the creator of this article)  to go on. At the end of the day it is 'talent,' not her Wikipedia article that is going to  bring recognition and notability.--Aspro (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- WP:PROMO article on a subject not yet notable. WP:TOOSOON also applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No promotional problems have been identified, see WP:PROMO. Unscintillating (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I looked at the Vogue article.  This topic meets our GNG requirements, and quite a bit more given that the coverage is international.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and, I meant to comment sooner, the WP:GNG is simply a suggestive guideline as the first paragraph says, and it's not a serious policy (and quite likely never will be, based from our policy standards); WP:NOT applies here because this page mirrors the specific WP:Wikipedia is not Facebook, since it in fact cares to cite the subject's own websites, profiles, announcements, quotes and similar, thus not satisfying even our simplest GNG standards since that itself says "Sources must be significant, independent, substantial and not inherited". The clear sockpuppet SPAs here enhance the fact WP:NOT applies, since the comments then are both not acknowledging our own policies but then even saying "Because there's sources", which is not a policy. As above shows, WP:PROMO in fact is policy also, specifically next to the part "Wikipedia is not a webhost, Facebook or similar". As we know, when such sourcing only cites self-published listings, it shows there's simply nothing else to advertise. SwisterTwister   talk  23:47, 14 January 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.