Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Tarraga

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tarraga[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)

I see no evidence of notability; possibly the puurpose is to promote his self-published book. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DGG:, no this is not an effort to promote his book. As one of the most prominent survivors of the child abuse scandal in Shirley Oaks (1 2 3) I just wanted to make his story known. Also the meat- rack that he described has been confirmed by officers to have been a hub for underage prostitution of boys (1 2). Most of the reports on him- if not all- stem from alternative media outlets and activists interviewing him. I do understand that that isn't in line with the notability standards. Are there notability standards for activists/ abuse survivors/ social media personalities? Maybe he'll meet those. He does have a following and interviews with him have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. I did really just want to write his story down because he is a known victim of child prostitution and child abuse. I do understand if the article will get deleted... In any case I thought about whether there would be a way to establish notability criteria for "prominent victims of forced prostitution" - as in that they are uncovering the prostitution rings and trying to have them be hold accountable. I did also start the article on Virginia Roberts Giuffre, because her coming forward has made such an immense difference in the world as whole and for all survivors. She has literally changed part of the media political landscape with her bravery. She might be one of the most prominent victims of forced prostitution- her article is viewed 1.800 times a day. But there are less known victims that had Johns that were less prominent who also deserve to be heard. I already communicated with the prostitution task force on WP about that. I might discuss this further in order to have stories of advocates and survivors known... Best regards, I hope that this is now clear. This was in no way an effort at promotion. I did also omit all names first mentioned in the article. It's really just his story. As he said all prospects from the selling of the book are going towards other survivors, he's not profiting off of it.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 05:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG failed. FOARP (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is extremely bad for a WP:BLP, WP:GNG very much failed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merging to the "alleged sexual abuse" section in Edward Heath's article, who is one of the subject's alleged abusers, may be an option. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — insufficient coverage in reliable sources. @Dflaw4, To merge it would not be a bright idea, @DGG is very much correct! At best I’d say this is bare notability & does not satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fair enough, Celestina007. Unfortunately I don't think the article can be sustained on its own, so I only suggested it as an alternative to scrapping the article completely, because I feel that the "delete" votes will probably prevail. Thanks for your response. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dflaw4, thank you also for devoting time in building the encyclopedia I’ve noticed your good works across all spheres of this collaborative project.Celestina007 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, I got interested in this process after you AfD'd an article I had written, funnily enough! I have it as a "Draft" now, and you can access it via my profile if you like—any feedback or assistance with it is highly appreciated. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dflaw4, sure thing, although I think it got recently rejected via the AFC process but regardless I’d my best.Celestina007 (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I wasn't really expecting it to get through; I was more trying to gauge how far off it would be from passing notability standards. And yes, any feedback would be good, Celestina007. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Not at all notable. -- Alarics (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2020 (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.