Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Alexander Figueroa

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 keep. Although nobody seems to be defending this article particularly enthusiastic, there's a clear consensus for "weak keep". Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Alexander Figueroa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional, WP:LOCAL. Sources are only local coverage, blogs, other Wikipedia articles (why the fuck are people still doing that?), or not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related article: Band Famous (AfD discussion). —Cryptic 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per highly inadequate sourcing, particularly for a BLP Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policy doesn't require extraordinary sourcing, only that controversial claims be well sourced or deleted and subjects be treated with respect. THIS from Minnesota Artists.org should be sufficient to source out anything not currently showing footnotes to provide verifiability. Carrite (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous references in independent sources. So this would pass WP:GNG. WP:Local is just an essay, not a policy. The references to Wikipedia are usually due to inexperience where people do not know how to make a wikilink. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONLYESSAY isn't a very convincing argument as it underestimates/overlooks the value and insight that essays can bring. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - He was written about in NY Arts Magazine, which is hardly a local Minneapolis source. The Minneapolis coverage meets the definition of a reliable source and is quite in depth as well, so that definitely counts for something (we aren't talking about a town of 2,000 here). Finally, there is the fact that some aspiring filmmaker made a documentary about him. All three of these things are pretty weak evidence of notability by themselves, but in total I would say Figueroa just barely meets the minimum requirement.

As to why anyone would "still" use a Wikipedia article as a reference, I would like to remind TPH that not everyone is an experienced editor and there is absolutely no need to be rude to newbies that make simple mistakes like that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article needs a lot of work, but sourcing does exist, such as THIS piece, "Live Nude Art" by Jamie Thomas of the Twin Cities Daily Planet. Not sure I will have time and energy to make an article rescue attempt, but this does seem to be a recognized national artist working in an unusual medium that is the subject of substantial coverage. But that article... Ugh! Carrite (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- seems to have just enough significant sourcing to keep. Needs major, major cleanup, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't want to support either the nominator or the Keep party, but did anyone realized that the links that the creator used are actually external links. Like, I don't see any New York Times, or other well established publication to verify the information. I might be wrong since arts are a bit different from mainstream events such as sports and politics and therefore probably receive coverage by either small town newspapers and/or websites.--Mishae (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Believe sufficient local RS and smattering of distant RS have been accumulated. (This article is a classic example of editors imperiling their baby by larding it up with weaker sources and rambling WP:fancruft.) Pax 06:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.