Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disco Freddy

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 merge to Brighton Beach. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Freddy

[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)

Seemingly non-notable figure. The only non-primary sources cited in the article do not focus on him. A WP:GOOGLE search does not turn up sufficient secondary sourcing about Disco Freddy. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as fun as the article is, the coverage appears to be marginal at best, with mostly trivial mentions. I would love for reliable, in-depth sources to be found, but I'm not seeing any. Possibly Merge some basic information in a sentence or two to Brighton Beach. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – references 1 and 4 as numbered in the current iteration of the article are enough to establish notability. Ira Leviton (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The "Jews of Brooklyn" book has a couple of short paragraphs describing him, which is OK. The "The Future of Folklore Studies in America: The Urban Frontier" paper, however, is, as far as I can see, nothing more than a namedrop that does not actually describe or discuss him at all, and is certainly not significant coverage. Doing some searches for both of the names the article states he performed under turned up very little, and that one OK-ish book source alone is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:56, 7 December 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.