Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bixop

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. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bixop

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

I can't find any sources in English or other languages that could support such an article. While I don't speak Portuguese, I still can't find any independent RS that have in-depth coverage. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral / Willing to Keep if Expanded While my Portuguese skills are equally poor, this source (not in the article) and this one (included a link) are some of the material available about him that support a claim of notability per WP;GNG. Ideally, I would like to see the article expanded with this material before considering retention as the article as it exists is not sufficient. Alansohn (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn Those are both interviews, thus WP:PRIMARY and not significant independent coverage. I don't see how someone talking about themselves in two sources (one questionably reliable) meets GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting to keep at this point nor do I agree with you that an interview violates WP:PRIMARY; as in many interviews, the questioning by the interviewer involves synthesis that makes the interview a viable secondary source; neither of these sources are diary entries or recordings of monologues by the subject that are irretrievably primary in nature. What I indicate is that there is a potential here for a credible claim of notability and that further digging in non-English sources and expansion of the article might result in a credible article per WP:GNG for which I might consider changing my vote to Keep; I'm not sure that you would disagree with that opinion. Alansohn (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are fine for sourcing BLP content. Primary sources, interviews in particular are not fine for establishing notability. I have no issue with an interview being included in an article but it doesn't establish notability, which is why this AFD is happening. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are agreeing here. If I believed that these interviews were prima facie evidence of notability I would have voted Keep. What I am indicating is that there may be credible claims of notability and that further digging -- perhaps using these sources as a starting point -- might well lead to additional sources and expansion of the article that *might* merit changing my vote to Keep. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we cannot keep an article based on interviews. We need secondary sources, not primary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources. Agricola44 (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no sources = no article.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth sourcing to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 24 January 2018 (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.