Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Alma (numismatist)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Alma (numismatist)[edit]

[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)

Not seeing much in the way of GNG-qualifying sourcing, either in the article or via a WP:BEFORE search. There's a bit of coverage in the local press, but it's all either non-independent interviews or unreliable letters from readers. Other sources are unreliable (e.g. The Sun) and/or passing mentions; there's no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Note also that the article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Alma (TV Host) and SALTed at Blake Alma. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are dozens of sources both local and national covering the reliability of this article. Some of which are used as sources in this article. User:Coincollector4ever (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Note to the closing admin: this user created the article that is subject of this AfD, and ran the sockpuppet BillofRights2000.[reply]
Delete per nom. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 22:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am with User:Coincollector4ever on reliability as sources like WCPO-TV, Local12, the Sun, and USA Today provide significate coverage on the article's relevance. Admittedly, I do live in Sharonville, Ohio (which is where is article's topic is originally from) and I primarily focus on local politics and articles pertaining to my area. I have been editing on Wikipedia for 6 years now. Granted, have heard of this biography before this article was made in local newspapers. I'd assume User:Coincollector4ever is associated with the character or/and is a follower of his social profiles, given User:Coincollector4ever dedication to this article. Despite that, the sources do provide enough coverage and reliability per my experience here on Wikipedia. ^{(User talk:BillofRights2000 / (talk)} 22:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Struck confirmed sock vote. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been summarily deleted as a recreation of a previously AFDed article. Coverage worth notability is local boosterism only; other coverage is videos and low-quality sources. Creator didn't edit articles at all for six years, then returned solely for this article, and repeatedly and persistently adds deprecated sources; this editing pattern strongly resembles commercial editing. WP:BOGOF should not apply here - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nomination Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 16:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If User:Coincollector4ever really is the same as User:Outdoorsmen2000 (who created Blake Alma through User:Alvin'sfriend), then this is a clear speedy delete. But that is not what the sock puppet investigation has concluded (yet), and so at this point the discussion should focus solely on the merits of the article, and not on who created it (or why). The previous deletion in itself is not a good reason for speedy, since most of the claims to notability concern the last few years, after the previous article was deleted. And I personally see very little evidence of COI editing. St Anselm (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2022 (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.