Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sal LaBarbera

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. ✗plicit 12:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sal LaBarbera

[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)

Not notable and therefore nothing more than WP:BIO violation bait.Central and Adams (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The only reliable sourcing is mostly about his 2011 Twitter controversy, which is WP:ONEEVENT at best. Furthermore the only RS piece that addressed more than that was an op-ed by Steve Lopez, which is hardly news reporting, although, as I said, it is at least RS. Central and Adams (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BASIC. Disregarding the many mentions in the context of his job, (murders get a lot of press, and a homicide detective is often interviewed about the investigation), there are two long profiles on his retirement[1][2] (the LA Weekly one has some decent bio details not in the article yet) and one shorter one.[3] Then a long profile on him two years after his retirement.[4] On the one hand, these are local coverage; on the other hand, the greater Los Angeles area is larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined, so I don't think "local" is necessarily disqualifying in this instance. adding Per a source posted at Talk:Sal LaBarbera, the LA Weekly profile is written by a friend of LaBarbera's, so is not independent for consideration of notability. Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As far as I can tell this is WP:BLP1E for the dead body tweet which created a little local notoriety, but not true notability. Just a WP:ROTM cop with a second career after retirement. Fails WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The revision history of the article contains content that was removed for now, per WP:ONUS, but which has also been addressed in the deletion discussion above. As the discussion seems to focus on notability, the current state of the article itself, and whether this material is currently part of it, should not have an influence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and per above, coverage is not enough to qualify GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Source is sketchy at best, but even if it were immaculate, still fails the "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" test (WP:GNG). And even if subject were to be seen as notable, it's only for WP:ONEEVENT. Two grounds for deletion clearly established. Johnnie Bob (talk) 19:18, 15 July 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.