Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregg Valentino (2nd nomination)

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. I think User:Nabla nailed this - the entire notability per WP:BIO here hangs on one obscure documentary program; yet even though the subject appeared in the program, he was not the reason for it; the documentary was about steroid abuse, with him being the exemplar for the problems that can happen. Black Kite 18:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gregg Valentino

Gregg Valentino (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Unencyclopedic, advert, referenced with primary sources, a MySpace page, and body building websites, no independent third party coverage. Notability may only be derived from self-aggrandizing claims, and steroids arrest (which was mainly referenced by the Daily Show, National Enquirer, and Howard Stern, to name a few). Fails WP:Athlete and WP:Bio. MrPrada (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Does not pass WP:RS outright. Obliterate... POOF! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs)
• Comment. May qualify for speedy depending on how similar the current article is to the version discussed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gregg Valentino. Shawisland (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The previous version is very similar, yet this one includes the metion to the documentary. So I think it is not a straight forward speedy. - Nabla (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There are several sources, but all primary. Gets less plausible the longer you look. Thanks, Shawisland! Potatoswatter (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.
• Delete, I actually caught The Man Whose Arms Exploded, a documentary about this fellow late on TV one night. While interesting, being the subject of a generally unremarkable and non-notable documentary is probably not enough to tip you over the notability line. The problems the editors above me have cited as per reliable sources are also quite worrying. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
• Keep Sorry to contradict my fellow editors, but Valentino is somewhat famous (or infamous, depending on your opinion) among bodybuilding enthusiasts. The fact he was the subject of a TV documentary would, by itself, suggest some degree of notability (I politely disagree with the arlier comment that the documentary was not notable). The article, as it stands today, needs a substantial rewrite. But I am not supportive of a deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Was the subject of a TV documentary. Lugnuts (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the subject of a TV documentary is a sure sign of notability. DarkAudit (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The documentary it self may be notable, if it was reviewed in reliable third party publications (which it was not). But the subject of the documentary? Where is the guideline for that? The borderline claim to notability here is that at one point, this guy had the largest arms in the world (and they are freaky looking, no doubt) but there are no reliable third party sources to verify this. Even if there were, I am not convinced that warrants inclusion in its own biography. But without these sources, we have nothing, just that documentary, which was about steroids, not about Valentino, he just appeared in it. MrPrada (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• comment - above editor is also the nominator - Nabla (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • The documentary demonstrates the notability of the subject (if the documentary was independent & reliably published). There is no need for the documentary itself to be notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Being the subject of a documentary is in fact being the subject of a secondary source independent of the topic. --Oakshade (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per MrPrada. - Nabla (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject of documentary = notable per secondary source coverage. MrPrada, please do not "vote" as well as nominate the AfD, it may confuse whoever tries to read consensus here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• You got the "equation" wrong. It is: Subject of documentary = presumed notable per secondary source coverage. This looks like precisely one of the cases where the person is not notable (WP-wise). I recall a documentaries featuring, say, a young boy that was a cow shepperd here in Portugal; another featuring a camel breeder in some northern Africa nation; even a few featuring a specific jaguar. Is that boy, that man, that jaguar, WP-notable? Definetely no. The real subject of the documentary was poor portuguese boys in that area in general; camel breeders in general, jaguars in general. The documentary featured a specific case, so that it becomes more appealing to the viewer, opposite of a "cold" academic work, it show busines, TV marketing. Does not immediatelly give notability for the actual person. - Nabla (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:N is met. Nothing wrong with referencing content to primary sources. Independence is third party sources is sufficient, the subject didn't fund them. The subject also happens to have an extraordinary claim of notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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.