Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Alma (numismatist) (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. This also could be closed as a CSD G5 as the creator was part of a long line of socks interested in having this article on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Alma (numismatist)

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Previously deleted as WP:Articles for deletion/Blake Alma (TV Host) and in the first nomination, and salted as Blake Alma. WP:REFBOMBED with unreliable sources, quotes, passing mentions, etc. with very little actual significant coverage cited.

(Not tagging for speedy deletion because it's been several years so things could plausibly have changed. But the refs here fail to convince me they have) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And let's titleblacklist .*blake.*alma.* once this is closed as delete so we can finally stop this campaign or whatever. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Radio, Television, Christianity, Florida, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article as provided demonstrates significant developments in Blake Alma's notability since the 2018 deletion. The sources cited, particularly WCPO (a major Cincinnati ABC affiliate), K-Love (a nationally syndicated radio network), and multiple Cincinnati Enquirer archive pieces, offer substantial, independent coverage that extends well beyond passing mentions or quotes.

These are not unreliable sources or self-promotion; they are established, reputable media outlets providing significant coverage of Alma's work and impact. The WCPO and Cincinnati Enquirer pieces offer in-depth reporting on Alma's activities and influence in the outdoor and conservation spheres.

This is not a case of WP:REFBOMBING. Each source included provides meaningful, substantial coverage. A thorough review of these sources, paying close attention to the depth of coverage and the independence of the reporting, is warranted.

The current body of coverage, coming from established and independent media outlets, meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The subject has clearly gained significant attention since the previous AfD, justifying a reevaluation of his notability status. If there are specific concerns about any of the sources or their content, they should be addressed individually rather than dismissing the article outright. Delawaretallman (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed breakdown...I totally agree! I put a lot of effort into this article and it's great to see someone else recognizing how Alma's profile has grown since the other deletion which I wasn't aware of until a live admin told me. Those sources really do show he's become noteworthy for this page. Thanks @Delawaretallman Coincollector4500 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Upon further review, some of the data in media coverage seems slightly like a form WP:REFBOMBING however, if cleaned up you should be just fine. Just use the secondary and primary sources that are in-depth. @Coincollector4500 Good luck! Delawaretallman (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, you quoted him on a religious statement from seemingly a personal social media account as the last source. I'd suggest you'd find that on a public account or another source. Looks like the K-Love article also quoted from that video so I suggest using that as the source. Delawaretallman (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if kept, this needs to be moved to Blake Alma. St Anselm (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that title is salted. That's how I found this article. I periodically run a report that looks for articles created at extra-long titles to evade salting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the title was salted 11 years ago however. Delawaretallman (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that decision was reinforced several times since. You (plural) clearly knew you were circumventing a decision Wikipedia has made several times to not have an article on this person, and did it anyway. The lack of respect that shows for Wikipedia's processes is shocking. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does look like the notability has changed. So yes, it should have been created in draft space and then an administrator could have moved it. But the process has nothing to do with whether it should be kept now. St Anselm (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. However, I'm not aware of any disrespect I've shown towards Wikipedia's processes or decisions. If I've inadvertently done so, I sincerely apologize. Could you please provide more specific information about the decision you're referring to? I'm always eager to learn and improve my contributions to Wikipedia. If there's been a misunderstanding, I'd be happy to discuss it further and ensure we're aligned with community consensus moving forward. Delawaretallman (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That "you" was really directed more to Coincollector4500, and I (perhaps erroneously) guilted you by association. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I did provide some guidance to Coincollector4500, but I have no association with the article's creator. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, as it's important to maintain transparency in Wikipedia collaborations. If there are concerns about the article's creation or maintenance, I'd be happy to discuss them further to ensure we're adhering to Wikipedia's policies and community decisions. Delawaretallman (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject now passes GNG. St Anselm (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources that get close to WP:GNG-qualifying are WCPO, KLove, and Spectrum News. The WCPO piece predates all the other AfD discussions and appears almost entirely based on an WP:INTERVIEW that doesn't appear to involve substantial journalistic work beyond the comments from Alma, making it a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. The new-ish KLove piece is highly promotional and one-sided, with language like Blake Alma's story is one of remarkable success and profound personal transformation.... his journey from a successful entrepreneur to a college student underscores the significance of aligning one's professional achievements with personal convictions. His narrative, enriched with personal reflections and aspirations, serves as an inspiration, highlighting the courage it takes to pursue a path that truly resonates with one's values and beliefs, even when it diverges from a successful, established route. This is transparently not an independent source, and again appears based solely on Alma's word, not original reporting. The same goes for the Spectrum News piece, it's based solely on Alma's words. The handful of Cincinnati Enquirer stories are likewise interview-based human interest pieces that function as primary sources since they're entirely based on Alma's words or videos. (Worth noting: the four Enquirer stories are not actually linked on the site of the publication or on ProQuest, but are copyright violations posted on a personal webhost service that coincidentally only includes these four articles and nothing else: https://cincinnatiarchives.tiiny.site/. I am deleting them from the article per WP:COPYLINK.). The rest of the links are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or press releases that don't support notability. Based on the non-independence of the sources used, I don't believe we have a WP:GNG pass here. The salting of the original article title was wise, and I agree with Pppery that additional permutations of this article title should be salted to avoid AfC evasion. Finally, this article was created a single-purpose account whose only other work was a draft for Alma's company CoinHub Media, so I strongly suspect we have a case of WP:UPE here as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You raise some valid points about the WCPO source - I agree it appears to be interview-based, and the unclear sourcing of the video content does make it less reliable as a provable independent source. However, I respectfully disagree about the K-love article. While it does contain some promotional-sounding language, this appears to be more a reflection of K-love established editorial style as a religous broadcasting network rather than a lack of independence. Klove is a national broadcasting network (operating over 400 stations) and should be a recognized secondary source. The religious perspective in their reporting shouldn't disqualify it as a reliable source. Regarding the Cincinnati Enquirer articles, that was a good catch and yes, you did a fine job of removing that. It appears a random IP address tried to fix the issue, presumably the article's creator. The Spectrum News piece, while containing interview footage, is reporting and verification of Alma's business operations, and is primary source material. I overall personally disagree with your assessment to delete but I do appreciate your viewpoint, and you've done excellent work catching the Cincinnati Enquirer citation issues and raising valid questions about the WCPO source. Delawaretallman (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the Spectrum News piece verifies things by quoting... Alma himself. There's no evidence of other sources for Alma's claims. And the KLove piece appears to be based on nothing more than... Alma's claims about himself. And there's no evidence that KLove is operating as a real news organization per WP:NEWSORG. It has no editorial staff listing on its site, and it has no public editorial policy or statements about fact-checking or corrections. Its news feed (https://www.klove.com/news) is mostly reprints of wire stories mixed in with WP:USERGENERATED content. And its mission is explicitly about creating positive and inspiring content (see its "Positive People" feed), which means its content will always be editorially positive and thus introduces questions about independence and reliability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear more assessment of the sources here and opinions on what should happen with this article and whether or no notability can be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: after looking at them, only 3 of the sources are valid and not just passing mentions as Dclemens1971 stated. For WCPO per WP:RS "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting" and that's basically all it is. It's just about "wow this kid discovered the outdoors (and A LOT of specifics about the journey) and runs a small (now defunct) podcast", nothing related to what he does today and doesn't show anything relating to NOTABILITY. The KLove and Spectrum articles are also human interest, and all they do is repeat what he said with little else. Parroting what he said, without analysis or contextualization, is a primary source. WP:BIO: "primary sources... do not [prove] notability". I also echo concerns raised by Dclemens1971 over the reliability of KLove as a legit WP:NEWSORG, I cannot find any evidence of editors, editorial policies or oversight.Molecular Pilot 01:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Even in otherwise-reliable publications, you aren't going to meet the GNG with interviews alone (and I also question whether K-Love—which while a national radio network is more known for its Christian music programming than anything resembling journalism—even constitutes generally-RS for our purposes to start with). As to the UPE concerns mentioned earlier: there has been socking in relation to this topic in the past involving at least most of the previous creation attempts, for what that's worth. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt It's an interesting one. On the face of it, the sources look plenty. Take out the non-reliable sources (NY Post, Goodreads, social media) and the ones that are about numismatics rather than Alma, as well as the CoinHub ones of course, and you're still left with several. If we were merely counting the number of sources, GNG would be easily satisfied. Alas, they are all of the 'young person does business' type, the sort of stuff you might see as the 'kicker' ie. the final light piece in a local news bulletin. These often come about because either the subject, or someone close to them, is good at playing the media game and/or has the right contacts. And judging by the persistence with which this is being pushed into Wikipedia, I get the feeling we're very much part of that publicity campaign. For that reason, I'm also asking for salt, because otherwise I expect we shall meet here again before long. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2024 (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.