Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Michael


 * 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 speedy delete‎ __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. WP:G5 by User:Justlettersandnumbers (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Tony Michael

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

I can't find sourcing for this person, the sources used appear typical celebrity fluff pieces using Gtranslate. Not meeting GNG, likely PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

and says doesn't meet GNG. Here are the reasons why its wrong and the article should be kept.

Reply to each section :

"Can find sources" - There are around 6 unique big length article all from reliable and independent secondary news sources all from reliable and reputed newspapers and magazines like International Business Times, Malayala Manorama, Vanitha, Onmanorama, Mathrubhumi etc talking about the subject. So it's irrelevant to tell that "can't find sources".

"Sources are not fluff pieces with and without using gtranslate" - There are 3 english news articles all detailed articles and secondary news sources, one from International Business Times and two from Onmanorama which doesn't need any Gtranslate and 3 other Malayalam detailed article secondary sources from Malayala Manorama, Vanitha and Mathrubhumi, all written by journalists as listed in these article and this detailed articles are no way fluff pieces.

"Meets GNG" - The International Business Times article https://www.ibtimes.co.in/kerala-showing-hesitance-accept-lgbt-community-says-top-makeup-artist-840767 is a detailed featured secondary news article about the subject, talking only about him in detail, similar is the case with 2 Onmanorama articles and additionally there are 3 very detailed and featured article secondary sources from Malayala Manorama, Vanitha and Mathrubhumi which makes the article pass GNG.

"Not PROMO" - The news references listed from International Business Times is written by journalist named Nirmal Narayanan. 2 Onmanorama articles are written by journalists Anagha Jayan E and Padmakumar K respectively. The Malayala Manorama article is written by journalist Deepthi Pellishery, The Mathrubhumi article is a special feature. Which proves that this is definetly not promo.

Christopheronthemove (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Striking sock.  Grey joy talk 16:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Kerala.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The International Business Times is not a reliable source; a special feature implies paid promotion in a newspaper. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can't find mention of the person in "reliable sources". Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: known for his viral photoshoots, celebrity makeup work for many South Indian celebrities. This is a promo piece and none of the sources are reliable. What is the claim of notability here? The subject becoming one among the many makeup artists and hairstylists of celebrities? This don't even pass WP:BASIC. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. 111.92.78.199 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ::COMMENT : '''IP Votes can't be counted as per IP addresses are not people Christopheronthemove (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Where it is mentioned here that IP Votes can't be counted. Don't make your own rules. I make regular edits from IP without creating any account. I also closely monitor edits of many users like you. My IP address is not static and it keeps changing several times. 111.92.78.203 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, was unable to find sources that support this article. Reviewed the sources and they also do not establish notability.

 Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 23:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * :: COMMENT : This source analysis is baseless and biased. They have not even added reporters names and considered every article written by different journalists as not reliable. I will send the genuine source analysis in next comment. Christopheronthemove (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * COMMENT : 'Here is the unbiased source analysis : 

This is the unbiased and genuine source analysis placing all journalist details Christopheronthemove (talk) 14:25, 23 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.