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. T. Canens (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Maaka[edit]

Candy Maaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. No significant coverage in independent sources. Only coverage I could find was a 2012 article on the QANTAS award and a 2014 article on her Kickstarter campaign for a vegan-fashion line, both from local newspaper Manly Daily. Much of the article also fails WP:V. Kb.au (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nom, fails SIGCOV. If not self-promotional then clearly a COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. And as DerbyCounty says either self promotion or COi in the writing of it. NZFC^(talk) 18:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there seems to be no news coverage, and search hits are almost all social media. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is news coverage, a lot of it in print media. Also note the name change. Will add to references. ^[1]JF1982 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— JF1982 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— I'm a brand new user who has only written, well attempted to write, one article. Of course there are few or no other edits outside of this topic. But for your information, I have also signed up to help tackle the backlog of orphaned articles (now that I know what they are). We have to start somewhere, right? Doesn't mean we're a single-purpose account. JF1982 (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Adding to the above, sources are local and mostly web and article is an ORPHAN. Judging from the edit record, this is likely a vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep In response to the local press comments, the subject lives in Australia and press articles are from Australia, New Zealand, America, Europe and UK. Mostly print. JF1982 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Not sure if this is the right place to say this, but I wrote this article and I am not the subject. I have 3 others to write, and I am still trying to find my way through this. This is the first time that I have heard of the term 'orphan article,' so I will try and figure out how to fix that. If anyone is willing to point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it a lot. I did read Wikis regulations and purposely didn't add business names/fashion label names and the subjects current book title to article, because I didn't want my first article to seem 'promotional.' But it appears to have come across as promotional, COI and now vanity. Please understand how frustrating it is to have everyone point out the errors in your article without offering how to better it. I genuinely welcome any tips. Thanks.JF1982 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please stop !voting more than once. Agricola44 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As you can see Agricola44, I am new here. I have been 'copy and pasting' how to reply here, and trial and error. I am only now aware of the 'comment' heading, and now understand that I can use 'comment' if I would like to say something (other than vote). I thought I had to keep saying 'keep' because that is my vote, and no, I didn't use 'keep' to try and tally more votes - hence I signed every post. It wasn't deliberate. I also thought that this wasn't a vote, but a discussion? So number of votes shouldn't count anyway. Please be patient with newbies here. This stuff is tricky! Everyone automatically assumes the worst. JF1982 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct, it's not a vote. It's a !VOTE. Kb.au (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy for user to continue working on it. While this may not be clear cut notable, there are several claims that can show notability. And based on exchange here, I wish everyone should AGF and let this to be sent to user space instead of deletion. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not opposed to moving it to draft or userspace if others think the notability is borderline. Kb.au (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm afraid notability is not borderline. If one looks carefully at the sources, they're almost all webpages. The Qantas airlines award is not notable. Moreover, the source for that doesn't even list Maaka, but is rather about the award itself. Most of the article is OR (is currently earning her diploma in Master Herbalism, etc). I think we must bear in mind that this is a BLP and that means sourcing is relatively stringent. Broad searching doesn't turn up anything that is even close to demonstrating notability. WorldCat shows that her book Lightwarrior is held by 0 institutions, Google searching just turns up GoFundMe/blogs/Twitter/FaceBook cruft, GNews nothing, no citations in books, and nothing in GS or HighBeam. It seems the only real RS are a few local news pieces, as the nom stated originally. Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There's borderline notability of course that's why WP:GNG is guideline not hard-coded policy. What you think is not notable someone may think otherwise and your view cannot summarily trumps theirs. Your search is limited by several factors both technically and physically. I am not saying it is outright notable but I can't say it's not either. There is a reason CSD A7 was designed very strict. On use of local sources, that's your opinion; there's no policy or guideline that prohibited them. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I hear that you are asserting this is a borderline case, but you don't seem to make a case beyond EXISTENCE of a few local sources. We generally don't accept notability at this level, otherwise a large fraction of humanity would be notable for WP purposes. It is true that my search is limited "both technically and physically", but no more than those done for numerous other AfDs here every single day. I don't think your strawman of the subjectivity of notability is helpful here. The fact of the matter is that most of the article is OR, most of the "sources" are unacceptable for a BLP, and there's very little else convincing that turns up in a broad search of the standard, conventional information databases that we use here at WP every day for this purpose (GS, WorldCat, etc. etc.). So, if you feel that this level of "evidence" is enough to say that notability is borderline, then I think you and I just have to disagree. Agricola44 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What does "most of the article is OR" mean? I have mentioned that I am doing this through trial and error. I have looked at other pages and used that as a guideline for what info to add. I added what the subject has studied and is studying, because I also added that she is a conservationist and humanitarian - it backs up those claims. I could add the subject's sustainable fashion/social enterprise as a page, but then I'd get blasted for promotional use. It seems that you want more info, but then I'm doomed because I'm not allowed to add it. Or is there a way to add that page, without being promotional? Also note that I did not add the subject's book to the article (again with the promotional stuff), Lightwarrior, even though it was sold by several of the largest bookstores in the world (I was able to see which stores sold the book through a google search). Regarding 'google searching and only finding GoFundMe/blogs/Twitter/FaceBook cruft' - note that the GoFundMe fundraiser was a recent event (Dec 2017), and social media is also recent/current; of course they're going to show on google regardless. But, the subject won the Qantas Award in 2012, and websites/media sites don't always hold articles for that long - it is 2018 after all (hence why print media is important and the clippings are available online). I have shared a print press clipping regarding the Qantas award win; it is notable. "It seems the only real RS are a few local news pieces" - The Dominion Post is NZ's largest newspaper, how is that local news when subject lives in Australia? Again, I have shared the clipping. The press articles are mostly print (local and international) and I have shown you where to view some of the clippings. But you keep saying the sources are only local. You will not find these clippings/print press articles in a google search or on worldcat - perhaps deeper research is needed because worldcat etc obviously can't pick up everything. "If one looks carefully at the sources, they're almost all webpages" - that happens when press is mostly print; how else am I supposed to cite relevant media articles, if not from the web? I add webpages and it's not good enough; yet in your opinion, the subject's notability is based on a web search. You can't have it both ways. JF1982 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• IMO, the most notable thing that the subject has done (asides from winning the Qantas award) was rebrand the successful fashion label that she won the award for in the first place. Subject rebranded to sustainable fashion and became a social enterprise instead. If you researched it, you would find that info easily. Although 'notable' to me and not 'notable' to you - I at least agree with 'borderline notability,' and that's why I wanted to write this article in the first place. JF1982 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2018 (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.