Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamale Guy

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. Daniel (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamale Guy[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)

absolutely no reason for a just a regular guy of zero note or importance to have a wikipedia page Honey-badger24 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — 17 sources doesn't sound like zero importance. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 18:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is quite a bit of local coverage of this guy, but it is local coverage. If we keep it, we need to rename it to his actual name, but this article really comes too close to WP:BIO1E. What can you possibly say about him? "He's a street vendor who sells tamales in Chicago and he was hospitalized once due to contracting the coronavirus." If that's it, I don't know why we would have an article. Is there maybe room to merge this and mention him in Culture of Chicago, if he is in fact so well-known there? That article covers food-related topics. FalconK (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep-- I started the article. He's very well known and good enough for respected sources like the Chicago Tribune. He's also got a restaurant now, so he's not just a man, but a full-on brick-and-mortar business. Victor Grigas (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~-- so, everyone who gets interviewed by a local newspaper deserves their own wikipedia entry?? That's some really heavy cope you got going there. He's a nobody. Making a wikipedia article so your buddy can get some free advertising is pretty disgusting, and shouldn't be on wikipedia. Honey-badger24 (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, please don't accuse me of a conflict-of-interest without evidence. He's not by buddy and I'm not advertising. This business has had a wide range of press locally. Well-established restaurants can be notable, and there is no policy against it. I've started a few articles about restaurants in Chicago, and I see you have felt the need to nominate all of them for deletion (for some reason). I have no business or personal relationships with any of them. Also I have no idea what "heavy cope" is. Victor Grigas (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is violating WP:DISCUSSAFD by !voting for their own nomination and so I have struck this. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or better Merge. I believe merging would be the best option as the guy is indeed well-known locally. But I don't find the right target - Chicago is more an overview and the guy belongs to contemporary urban culture. However I don't think he is notable enough for a stand alone article. Less Unless (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been extensive coverage of this person specifically and so they pass WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rename) references in the article such as [1] are sufficient. (Disclaimer: I started an article on San Francisco's Tamale Lady.) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fucking retarded how Wikipedia is now basically Yelp! Dogshit articles like this one about a nobody make a mockery of this site. Wow, they were in the news, so what? The convenience store near my house was in the news too because someone had a heart attack in there once, am I allowed to make an article on that? The author is probably getting kickbacks from the business he's shilling for Honey-badger24 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, 1.) This is the second time you have accused me of a conflict-of-interest without evidence. I don't live near this business. I live in Massachusetts, a thousand miles away from Chicago. I have no relationship with this business. I have received no forms of payment from this business. You have objected to the existence of this article and it is being judged by the Wikipedia editing community as to whether or not it is notable, I'm afraid that your suspicions are unfounded conjecture. 2.) "fucking retarded" and "Dogshit" are insults and violate civility rules. Unless you seek to be banned I suggest you modify your tone. Wikipedia is not Yelp!, nor is it Twitter, there are rules of comportment. Victor Grigas (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability guidelines. Peter303x (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for substantive discussion of the sources in the article, which hasn't really occurred. Also, please leave the epithets out of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Local sources are not an impediment to the existence of notoriety, since WP:N does not require sources to be national or international, it only requires the existence of secondary and reliable sources. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Chicago Tribune coverage is excellent, and the multiple articles tracking his Covid hospitalization indicate that he's well-known. WBEZ coverage is also good. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BASIC. Setreis (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC (and it isn't a particularly close call). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Extensive coverage, WP:BASIC passed. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Rename Seems to be local only, however rename seems appropriate. Onursides (talk) 19:09, 19 January 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.