Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The OC wall calendar

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 keep. Consensus is the article should be fixed and improved, not deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OC wall calendar

[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)

Article fails notability, corrections in sourcing refers to much of the material presented in the article is incorrect/misconstrued, and the article is a long, long standing orphan. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article creator appears to have been a SPA who disavowed and blanked article after sourcing revealed material to be a hoax. Not doing a speedy deletion because a debate regarding its notability as a hoax might be relevant. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmm. Is there any page this could be merged into? I mean, part of the page seems at least somewhat relevant, but I don't have any idea where this would be merged. Historyday01 (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01: Don't wholly disagree, but I discovered this after going through the LGBT and Eastern Orthodoxy categories, all of which are heavily underpopulated. The sources mostly seem to engage with this in the context of general Pride, and I don't see anyone with any notability mentioned in the secondary sources that we could attach this to. If someone finds something, a sentence or two into another article might be good. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep sources exist, even if they’re not great. Should probably just be turned into a stub with a clear note that the church dismissed the calendar as a hoax by people posing as priests/clergy unless a suitable merge target is found (which is unlikely). Dronebogus (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: I'll do that now, but maintain that I think a couple HuffPo articles written then partially retracted are insufficient for notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hence “weak keep”. Dronebogus (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get a hit from the "Business Review", rest of the sources seem unreliable. Huff Post is a reliable source, but the article uses two versions of the same website as sourcing. They closed the Canadian version of Huff Post regardless, business decision after a union vote... Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Revised article to include claim that models were clergy, and the orthodox authorities' response reported in the Bucharest Harold. Reporting by second independent source suitably establishes the notability of the subject. –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found additional in-depth coverage in The Washington Post and PinkNews. Definitely passes the general notability guideline. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we go with keep, I think using the original RNS story that was syndicated to WashPo would be a better cite but either way it certainly establishes notability that could qualify it for retention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2022 (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.