Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LtCorbis

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, contributions) 20:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LtCorbis[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)

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:CREATIVE. Contested PROD. Cabayi (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a fan page, concur on failing WP:CREATIVE, I would have given it the WP:A7 treatment myself. creffett (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this hit-piece on a 14-year-old girl. All of the sources read like hit-pieces which they are, and we need to WP:AVOIDVICTIM especially considering at least one "journalist" has harassed Soph's father. wumbolo ^^^ 19:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete She is not even 15. It is bad enough that Youtube, twitter and the like make it so rash comments made when you are frustrated by something can be easily captured and preserved for all time. There is nothing of substance here, nothing coming close to justify having an article on a 14-year-old, let alone one that reveals she has been investigated by the police. Despite having participated in Everybody Draw Muhammad Day (with a truly innoculous cartoon, as opposed to many of the inflamatory ones that have shown up), I have no desire to kill anyone, and having worked in schools in both Dearborn and more so Hamtramck, I have seen Niqab in the extreme, hijab paired with full covering clothes, and Detroit's Yemini communities have nothing on Minnesota's Somali communities for contributing to ISIS. Still I expect that if recording of conversations had been as easy in 1990-2000 as it is today, me and all my fellow 30 something year olds would easily have all been exposed to have said some unmeasured things in our youth. There is no justification for this article. I know our current tendency to delete articles on Youtubers will probably get Wikipedia hated in some Youtube related circles just as firmly as my two youngest brothers hate Wikipedia for its heavy deletion of web comic articles back in about 2007, but reliable sources and strong citations need to continue to be our watchwords, especially when we are dealing with people who are minors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2019 (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.