Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmett McAuliffe

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett McAuliffe

[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)

Emmett McAuliffe, the subject of this entry, was only accused by a single source, the hucksters.net website, that is not very reputable given the partiality in the writing and the lack of evidence in the page that's referred to. Given that no other source has brought any credence to this supposed unmasking for more than two years, the entry doesn't respect the standards for sourcing and is most definitely libelous. And in February 2024, legal documents produced in court have established that the true identity of “Enty” is one John Nelson, from Beverly Hills. As a result, because this entry only exists to mention the supposed actual identity of some blog writer and the identification is incorrect, it should be deleted. PetitCesar (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'll first note that the apparently-offending content was only added in 2022 (to an article that has been on Wikipedia since 2006) by a one-edit user, so I can't exactly say that it is the only purpose of the article (and the material in question can thus probably, if not should, be excised/reverted). (There was also contextual sourcing—about a detail not directly to the article subject—to the New York Post, a source not exactly intended to be used in legitimate edits.) I also must note that before then, this was a BLP with no real sourcing at all. Even at best, this article was a remnant of the looser standards of 2006 — but BLPs and BLP-adjacent content have stricter standards than the rest of Wikipedia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Entertainment, Law, Internet, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about all I could find [1], which does nothing for notability. Hosting a podcast isn't very notable. There is nothing about the radio positions held for the last 50 yrs or so. I can find his law firm bio, which is very much a primary source and not useful here. I don't see GNG as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 20:57, 8 March 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.