Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kokumo

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. Cabayi (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kokumo

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, per comments at [1] and [2]: this subject is a border case of notability - and is adamant that the article about them be deleted. Paul ❬talk❭ 15:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 15:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 15:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 15:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator says, the notability is borderline. I would normally vote keep in this situation and work on digging up some more sources, but with the request to delete the article I see no compelling need or overwhelming notability to support keeping it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Enough borderline notability for a "weak keep," but delete is fine given the subject's request. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that notability is borderline. Moreover, "Kokumo" as a name tends to be surprisingly common, such that a lot of what I'm pulling up in Google News search is non-responsive (strings: kokumo, kokumo activist, kokumo singer), and the general search, while more on-target, pulls up nothing really useful that isn't already cited. This coupled with the BLPDELREQ weighs in favour of deleting it, though if she's watching this AfD, I'll make myself perfectly clear: The chances of you being able to do better are, based on the Google search results, pretty much impossible. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 16:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In light of David notMD (talk · contribs)'s !vote below, SALT the earth as well (diff of demand: [3]). They should be going through the drafting process like every other COI editor, and IIRC their account's autoconfirmed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before we apply WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, the user should go through the proper OTRS verification process to verify they are who they say they are. Saying that, I support a delete as not meeting WP:GNG. Although if this article gets deleted, it shouldn't be seen as an encouragement for them to create an autobiography instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per much of the above. I take Joseph2302's point about OTRS verification, but to be honest the claims to notability are so slight, and the sourcing so weak, I'd probably be in the delete camp anyway regardless of the subject's request. Most of the sourcing I can see is either affiliated (Huffpost released her work), press-releasey stuff, or interviews in the local paper. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the person wants the article deleted there is no reason to keep it, they are not nearly so notable that we would absolutely need to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt weak notability and subject's preference but given the disruptiveness, poor attitude of the subject, and desire to own the article, there is a reasonable chance they will create another account to produce an autobiographical article. Slywriter (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep She/they are the subject of the Huffington Post article and is also indexed in the LCCN system, the start of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oaktree b, can I point out that the HuffPost article is an affiliated source - the track it's covering was released as an exclusive premiere through HuffPost Gay Voices. It's not something that can be used to assess notability. I'm not familiar enough with the LCCN system to offer a view on whether that contributes significantly to notability for an author. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there is some in-depth significant coverage in independent sources and they have received a notable Lambda Literary Award. Theroadislong (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~(possibly subject to OTRS request verification, in case this is a case of impersonation?)~~ based on the combination of borderline notability and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE with the standard proviso that the article may be recreated at a later time if they become sufficiently notable that an article would be clearly appropriate. -- The Anome (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE confirmed via OTRS Ticket2021030410007637. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geoff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. versacespace talk to me 12:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. A keep vote at this stage is basically out of spite. ValarianB (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bolding my vote now, as WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. Though if we delete at the user's request, can we also protect from re-creation? Because otherwise I have a feeling that the subject will just try and write their own autobiography here. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if we normally do salt pre-emptively. I would opt to wait and see in this instance, as I think she's intending to pursue other, more appropriate, avenues of promotion. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct that we do not SALT preemptively. Typically 3 is the magic number, but that isn't a hard rule. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The user in question is asking for a BLPREQUESTDELETE specifically because they want to create their own page- their userpage and talkpage make that very clear. But if we really want for them to create a new article and that to get deleted before applying the salt, then go for it. But salting just solves the inevitable problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Policy doesn't work that way. If they end up recreating the article, then they will still not have any control over it, and future BLPREQUESTDELETE requests will simply be ignored Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - She's made it clear this is a hill she will fight and die on, and I feel it's better to shut this down before it goes south - because it will go south the moment someone else other than her edits the article without her blessing. She's already made it clear that controlling "her" article is the only outcome she will accept, and we need to push back on this in no uncertain terms, otherwise I foresee this ending with community bans. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 00:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        AFD isn't the place we issue sanctions, however. The issue at hand is the article, not the potential for future issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Hence why I and Joseph are arguing for a salt. I'm not saying she should be sanctioned based off of her behaviour around this AfD; I'm saying that the page should be salted and she should go through AfC since she has an autoconfirmed account and would otherwise bypass it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 17:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and questionable notability anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Received message on my Talk today (9 March) from person in question, as an IP, confirming demand to have the article deleted unless can have complete command of content. David notMD (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She left this message on the page today. Thoughts?--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 14:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That may or may not be the same person, but still Delete. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That person (IP:68.193.85.73) last week sent me a note, that basically said 'If I cannot control it completely, delete it.' Even if this is now a true change of heart, my opinion is still Delete. They (meaning a singular pronoun) can try starting over as an autobiography. Or give up. David notMD (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2021 (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.