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 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of military engineer nomenclatures

List of military engineer nomenclatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article's content is already covered by military engineering. Aside from that, the article's title says it is a list of nomenclature, but the article does not provide any nomenclature and is barely a list at all. This article has no sources and the subject is too broad/vague. The article is simply not useful to anyone. Pythagimedes (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pythagimedes (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Pythagimedes (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Pythagimedes (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The way this article reads now, it's like, "Here are five terms (linked to other articles) for people who work as military engineers. You want to find out what these terms mean? Go read the linked articles. We're not going to define them for you here." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need of a list related page. Sachin.cba (talk) 12:13, 2 June 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.

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. Also eligible for G5 speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valaleilo. MER-C 16:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Montik

Ivan Montik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promo piece on a non-notable businessperson. Sources look plentiful, but consist of a few interviews and some articles at best indirectly associated with the person (many of which don't even mention him), nothing even close to sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with concerns on sources and that, when parsed and balanced, they amount to a fail of WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is also a draft, Draft:Ivan Montik, which appears to be word-for-word the same as this article, although it was nominally created by different editors. Creating two copies of a page in draft space and article space is often done to game the system by preventing draftification of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I noticed that, too. As for 'different editors', I reckon there are issues of that ilk, which I will look into when I get a chance. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article: Hey! I've been working on the same article for a month, as I see someone have added a picture and few more relible sources to SBCnews and Eurogames and push it to a mainspace - now i have received notification and join the discussion. Thank you all for expressing your opinions on the article that have been created. In defense of the article: Searching by name yields multiple results from different sources. There are many interviews, but there are also product and company reviews that are secondary sources. It is worth noting the presence of quotes related not only to the developers industry. The person has played a major role in co-creating a well-known technik which has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Vlavluck (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for joining the discussion. Now that you're here, can you shed any light on how you and another editor came to create two identical copies of this article? Also, when you say you "received notification", what do you mean by that, given that you're not the creator of this article (or rather, this particular copy)? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DoubleGrazing! As I see there are few more contributors who added an image and two more sources and publish the article bypassing my draft. By "received notification" I mean that when I've been checking status of my draft's resubmission, I've found notice that the article already exist. When I've checked it I realise that is my draft. But since I have no copyright for it from the moment it was posted on the site, I have no complaints about it. The main question we are faced here is whether the article is suitable for Wikipedia and how it can be improved in order to save it Vlavluck (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands - crypto-related puffery, dubious sourcing unsuitable for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 30 May 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.

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. Notability not met. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Kuchibhotla

Vivek Kuchibhotla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. The cited sources [1], [2], [3], [4], are not considered reliable. They are published on the same date (24 April 2018) with identical content (WP:SYNDICATED).

The TOI and Rediff make only a passing mention. DC has no mention at all. Also in none of the films, they are actually credited as a "producer."

Previous AfD was closed as nom. did not provide any reason. Ab207 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete never actual producer on any film. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 7 June 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.

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 no consensus. Consensus on current notability seems to be a bit murky, but there are signs that this person's notability might become more clear in the near future. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akil Kumarasamy

Akil Kumarasamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable writer; author of one book, that has received a non-notable award. Sources cited are primary, and a search finds nothing better, that is actually about her and not about her book (the best I could find is an article in Telegraph India, but it's an interview). Fails WP:GNG / WP:AUTHOR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dismal swamp, indeed. Per nom, award not notable, coverage not notable, subject not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's a lot of coverage of her debut book, which I had expected to include enough biographical material to meet GNG, but it looks like the book reviews have focused on just the book itself for now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY due to revisions and additions of sources, including reviews and an interview with commentary on her as an author, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST. Per WP:AUTHOR, she has created [...] a [...] well-known work, as demonstrated by the multiple 'best of' and 'recommended'-style lists her book Half Gods has appeared on, e.g. Scroll.in, Village Voice, PEN America, New York Times, USA Today and Redbook, and in addition, the book has been the primary subject of multiple independent [...] reviews, e.g. New York Times, New Yorker, Hindustan Times, Publishers Weekly, and The Hindu. Per WP:BASIC, there is an interview with AAWW Magazine that includes commentary on her as a writer, and WP:BASIC also notes, Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject, so biographical information can continue to be added to the article from interviews that have found her worthy of notice, including from Scroll.in, The Telegraph India, and The Massachusetts Review, as well as at least one other at least partially primary source that appears to WP:NEXIST (i.e. the NYT review notes there is a 2017 interview available), but her notability as an author seems supported by the WP:SECONDARY sources and the WP:AUTHOR guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC) There is also this review/interview from Open Magazine that includes biographical information and commentary about her as an author. Beccaynr (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY due to the work done by Beccaynr. VV 11:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I also think reviews that have been added since my previous comment: Los Angeles Review of Books, Kirkus Reviews, and The Millions, provide significant biographical context in addition to discussing the book, and the interviews help make this more clear. Beccaynr (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Award winning WP:AUTHOR. pburka (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AUTHOR doesn't actually mention 'award winning' as a satisfying criterion. WP:ANYBIO does, but it requires the award to be "well-known and significant", which a non-notable college award isn't. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Annual Bard Fiction Prize includes a $30,000 cash award and an appointment as a writer in residence at Bard College for a semester, so it seems to help support her notability per WP:AUTHOR #4 ("won significant critical attention"), even if it does not strictly meet WP:ANYBIO. Beccaynr (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I thought this was such a clear keep that it didn't require further explanation. Half Gods is indisputably notable. It was widely reviewed and won several awards. Wikipedia should include an article about either the book or its author. pburka (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment WP:NAUTHOR is quite specific that to be considered notable as an author, someone should be "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - book reviews (esp. IMHO in book review sites) don't reflect this, or reflect "significant critical attention". Book reviews contribute to the notability of a book not an author. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR#3 specifically mentions reviews as contributing to the notability of the author, as discussed above, and the volume of critical attention, per #4, appears to be "significant." Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, c'mon now. WP:AUTHOR#3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. IN ADDITION..." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the highlighting in my first comment to clarify that I was quoting "in addition" from WP:AUTHOR#3; and to further clarify why I think the book is 'well-known,' it is due to the coverage by multiple national news outlets in India and the United States. Beccaynr (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Question When reading WP:ANYBIO, do you also interpret it to require all three (a well-known and significant award or honor, part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, and an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary)? I have interpreted criteria in the same section as WP:ANYBIO, including WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENT as having a similar implied "or" due to the nature of the factors listed. Beccaynr (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see both guidelines as OR lists. But I also see 'a well-known and significant award or honor' (WP:ANYBIO) in books as a national award rather than a college bursary or award. FWIW! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable at this time. There is no doubt she has been noticed for her first novel, but its early days, but the award isn't prestigious. scope_creep^Talk 21:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After her debut short story collection, she also has written a novel that is set to be published, so her work as an author is more developed than one major published work. Beccaynr (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the novel hasn't been published yet, wouldn't that just make this WP:TOOSOON? I think that it's extremely likely that the subject will be notable in the not too distant future, but a published book and a yet-unpublished book do not an oeuvre make. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because the WP:AUTHOR guideline only requires one work, and Kumarasamy has already published multiple works - her first book is a collection of short stories, several of which had been previously published in literary journals. The upcoming novel emphasizes how her career appears to be well-established, and the Bard College prize/appointment as a writer-in-residence also helps emphasize how she is regarded as an important figure [...] by peers per WP:AUTHOR#1, and similarly therefore not WP:TOOSOON for an article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least half the text of this article is about her first book, which I think we all agree is notable. A reasonable alternative to deletion would be to rename the article to Half Gods and reorganize it slightly to focus on the book rather than the author. But see User:Pburka/Sole authors of notable books for why I think it's preferable to keep the article as is. pburka (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to the argument that the short stories count as multiple works, but I think that suggesting that AUTHOR should routinely allow biographies of writers with only one published work is a stretch. We're intentionally vague with our bounds on stuff like this to allow for exceptions in the case of authors whose single work is of immense fame and significance (e.g. To Kill a Mockingbird), but unless the single work in question is a household name classic I don't think a single well-reviewed work is sufficient. All in all, I think I'm leaning towards neutral here: I'm not fully convinced by the keep arguments, but they do have some merit and I think that it's pretty clear that it's only a matter of time for the subject to unambiguously cross the threshold of notability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per arguments put forward by Beccaynr. This goes a long way in correcting Wikipedia's POC bio blindspots. JeanPaulMontmartre (talk) 12:38, 3 June 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.

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 Atlas Portland Cement Company. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. F. Affleck

B. F. Affleck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman. Notable information is that he was president of Atlas Portland Cement Company; his name and the years of his presidency could be merged into that article. Much of the current article is his family's history, with sources including unpublished family autobiographies and newsletters, and links to death notices. Other sources are from local newspapers in the 1910s and 20s about how he had recently become a sales manager and president of a men's club. Popeye191 (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Atlas Portland Cement Company per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective Merge to Atlas Portland Cement Company, which would benefit from such an improvement. Having problems accessing most of the sources in the article, so AGF that the content in the article is accurate. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 5 June 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.

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. Some good sources found by Lord Bolingbroke; I hope he will consider adding them to the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert-Paul Granier

Albert-Paul Granier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative keep. I found one book with significant coverage of Granier's poetry through a search on Google Books.^[1] Also found a translation of Granier's works that appears to have some in-depth commentary.^[2] More coverage likely exists in other books and French-language sources. I would be glad to reconsider my !vote if a more thorough search does not turn up better sources. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources found by Lord Bolingbroke and other coverage such as [5], [6]. Likely a native french speaker could find more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This nomination does not disclose any genuine WP:DELREASON. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:56, 12 June 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.

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. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Ueter

Carl Ueter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Perhaps there are sources in German, but, I'm not finding anything that qualifies this subject for inclusion via WP:GNG NOR WP:NMUSIC. Missvain (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. the references seem sufficient. Full profesor at major Conservatory. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets the criterion of WP:NACADEMIC #5. Any chair at a European university in the 1950s (in the days before personal chairs were common, almost all chairs were established and few academics bore the title of "professor") would generally be the equivalent of a named chair at an American university today. Many still are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As DGG and Necrothesp have said, having been a professor at a German university is sufficient to meet criterion WP:NACADEMIC. Named chairs are uncommon at German universities and reaching the full professorship before the expansion of higher education in the second half of the century equals a named chair in the United States. Additionally, a case for WP:GNG might be made: the volume Dirigent – Komponist – Universelle Persönlichkeit was published on the occasion of his death and is sure to contain significant coverage of his life. If there is good coverage on him in the Handbuch Deutsche Musiker 1933–1945, as de.wiki suggests, he is surely notable via that route. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:58, 18 June 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.

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. Sandstein 19:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Gummer

Phyllis Gummer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Neutral per WP:BASIC and what I have been able to add so far, including from GBooks - WP:BASIC states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and it appears that the sources that were in the article and have since been added can may combine to sufficiently establish her notability as a composer. And per WP:COMPOSER, she appears to have written a composition that has won [...] in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers, i.e. CAPAC in 1940. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC) updated !vote Beccaynr (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment1) The CAPAC competition was an award exclusively to composers under 22, so for newcomers. 2) The article lists compositions but no reference where they came from. Same goes for a lot of the biographical information. 20th c violin concerto (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Despite my due diligence, I can't find anything that qualifies this subject for WP:GNG, WP:BASIC nor WP:NMUSIC. Missvain (talk) 21:12, 4 June 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.

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 08:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Luke Rose

John Luke Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unfortunately I cannot find enough info on the subject to equal the notability requirements. Until someone can show me good third party sources I have to vote for the delete.--Canyouhearmenow 23:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Despite my due diligence, I can't find anything that qualifies this subject for WP:GNG, WP:BASIC nor WP:NMUSIC. Missvain (talk) 21:13, 4 June 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.

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. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Dennington

Arthur Dennington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are plenty of references to him and his orchestra in the contemporary media. I think they're sufficient to push him over the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Despite my due diligence, I can't find anything that qualifies this subject for WP:GNG, WP:BASIC nor WP:NMUSIC. Just passing mentions. Missvain (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Conductor of important orchestra is notable. Has the due diligence included a search in appropriate sources for reviews of the performances of the orchestra he led? DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has relevant data and reliable sources which makes it notable.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. I added content and references from The Guardian, The Observer, The Stage and Television Today, and Musical Express demonstrating sustained significant coverage over several decades.4meter4 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 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.

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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Griffiths

Herbert Griffiths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Why, pray tell me, would the creator of an article nominate it for deletion? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Plenty of us on Wikipedia have changed our view on notability as the project itself has evolved. I certainly started articles around the mid-2000s on subjects I don't think are notable now. RobinCarmody (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have just added a citation of his obituary in The Times. An obituary in a major national newspaper has always been held to be sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Qualifies for a Wikipedia article via WP:GNG and lots of sourcing can also be used for WP:BASIC. That includes the obit found by Necrothesp and other sources including:

• "The Term 'Musical' " written by Griffiths in The Musical Times
• Herbert Griffiths brief biography via the Biographical Dictionary of the Organ
• "Herbert Griffiths" biography from Tobias Broeker
• His works and archives are held in the Royal College of Music

And that doesn't include what I think could qualify under WP:BASIC. I think with a bit of due diligence and focus, he could have a robust article built around offline sources. Missvain (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Times,and reliable book sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 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.

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 08:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian region name etymologies

Peruvian region name etymologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pointless unreferenced table of etymologies of a dozen or so of Regions of Peru. Whatever is reasonable must be moved into the corresponding artcles Lembit Staan (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zero references, dictionary material. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:07, 29 May 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.

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 and redirect to Andrew Tan. Ultimately I find myself persuaded by the arguments that the sources are not reliable/independent, primarily by DGG as well as Extraordinary Writ's switch to delete. To prevent recreation, I will redirect to Andrew Tan and protect (rather than a straight SALT). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin L. Tan

Kevin L. Tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Covert UPE article on a Non notable businessman who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus a major GNG fail. A before search shows hits in unreliable sources which were majorly just press releases. Even in the sources used in the article, they predominantly only discuss his father stepping down for him to be the next CEO. Furthermore notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Last AFD ended in "speedy delete" 4 days after nomination. Dunno if you can CSD this one based on that. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is largely inherited from Alliance Global Group Inc.. Also concerns that a different title has been used to evade the creation protection at Kevin Andrew L. Tan, which was added due to sockpuppet involvement. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and WP:SALT this title as well - Celestina's comments are correct Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per nom and above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Moved to) weak keep, after reimprovements by Cunard. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 17:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Caña, Paul John (2017-04-29). "The Next Tycoon: Kevin Tan Goes From Handing out Flyers to Expanding Beyond Real Estate". Esquire. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

     The article is an extensive profile of Kevin Tan. The article notes: "Many stories have been written about Tan, the eldest son of billionaire Andrew Tan, who Forbes Philippines magazine listed as the 10th richest man in the country last year. Good-natured, well-spoken, and a familiar presence in Manila’s social scene, the younger Tan has been exposed to the workings of the empire his father built since he was born. ... Besides being executive director of Alliance Global, the conglomerate’s holding company, Tan is also senior vice president and head Megaworld Lifestyle Malls, which basically means he handles the leasing, marketing and operations of the company’s slate of “lifestyle malls,” including [list of malls]. Tan also oversees the commercial aspect of the company’s expansion into township developments outside Metro Manila ...

  2. Gonzales, Iris (2019-05-05). "The Emperador's Son". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

     The article notes: "The young Tan no doubt juggles his time between his duties as chief executive officer of Alliance Global Group Inc., the conglomerate his father founded, and as husband to Michelle and a doting dad to their two children. He has taken on practically all public duties related to the group, as his father has chosen to steer clear of the spotlight."

  3. San Juan, Thelma Sioson (2012-11-18). "Kevin Tan: 'Dad knows how to motivate, to spot what you want'". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

     The article profiles Kevin Tan. The article notes: "When Kevin Tan was eight years old, he was sent by his parents Andrew and Katherine to Hong Kong to spend his grade school there at the Chinese International School."

  4. Flores, Mikhail (2018-06-05). "Philippine tycoon Andrew Tan steps aside for son. Alliance Global's new leader becomes youngest among country's conglomerates". The Nikkei. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

     The article notes: "Kevin Tan, 38, was appointed CEO effective Monday, while his 68-year-old father remains as Alliance Global's chairman. The son becomes the youngest chief executive among major Philippine conglomerates."

  5. Mauricio-Arriola, Tessa (2021-02-21). "On the perfect balance of leadership at a most challenging time". The Manila Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

     This is an interview of Kevin Tan. The article provides analysis about Kevin Tan, noting, "To be sure, his billionaire father, Andrew Tan, trained him with love and by whip and example, as he rose up the ranks from a mere sales agent to the top executive posts across the family’s diverse investments; but it is all the more certain the senior Tan couldn’t have seen a pandemic bringing the world to a stop in this lifetime, nor prepare his son to steer his life’s work through such catastrophe. Nonetheless, all but 40 years old, the business scion did not disappoint his legendary father nor their family and the many hundreds of AGI employees who depend on the Tans’ success and subsistence of their own."

  6. Millet, Manaquil M. (2021-02-14). "Kevin Tan: Fast action on the road to recovery". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

     The article discusses Kevin Tan's work on Megaworld's homegrown delivery app, Pick.A.Roo.

  7. Kingsu-Cheng, Jane (2020-08-07). "Kevin Tan on how to make living in this crisis easier. His new baby, the newest on-demand delivery app, Pick.a.roo, is designed to make contactless shopping faster and easier for Filipino families". Manila Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

     The article discusses Kevin Tan's co-founding of the app Pick.a.roo. The article notes that he is a father and has a daughter, Kathleena.

  8. Kevin Tan's wedding and children:
     1. Mananquil, Millet M. (2013-07-21). "Kevin Tan and Michelle See fill their wedding with love, laughter, songs and 24 kisses". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

        The article is a detailed profile of Kevin Tan's wedding.

     2. Flores, Wilson Lee (2013-05-29). "Kevin Tan & Michelle See: An auspicious date". The Philippine Star. Retrieved 2021-05-16 – via PressReader.

        The article notes: "The 300 luncheon reception guests of Kevin Andrew Tan and Michelle Lorraine See Ñ led by President Noynoy Aquino ... Ñ his sisters, TV/movie star Kris Aquino and Ballsy Aquino-Cruz, Senator Manny Villar, PAGCOR chairman Bong Naguiat, Secretary Rene Almendras, Robina Gokongwei-Pe, Nedy Tan-toco and Anton Tantoco Huang ..."

     3. San Juan, Thelma Sioson (2013-07-21). "'What you need you already have'". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

        The article notes: "Megaworld scion Kevin Tan, 33, is never afraid of the spotlight, not even with media watching. He is a people’s guy. ... His parents, Andrew and Katherine, made sure he would get used to the company of people other than his family or clan. They sent him—the eldest in a brood of four—to study and live in Hong Kong at eight years old, an age when Filipino boys, in general, aren’t even weaned from their yaya."

     4. Jambora, Anne A. (2013-05-26). "Kevin Tan takes a bride". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

        The article notes: "Tan has always been the marrying kind—and very religious. A devout Catholic, he has never missed a Sunday Mass for six years now. He had been praying for years for the right girl to come along. He once got engaged, at 30, a mistake he didn’t want to repeat."

     5. "Real-estate scion Kevin Tan weds in Singapore". Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2017-04-24. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.
     6. "Afternoon of childhood memories. A carnival make-believe for Andrew Tan II". Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2019-05-22. Retrieved 2021-05-16 – via PressReader.

        The article notes that Andrew Tan II (nicknamed "Drew"), the son of Kevin Tan and wife Michelle See-Tan, turned one year old in May 2019.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kevin Tan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I rewrote the article with completely new content after finding copyright violations in the existing text.

  Cunard (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, clearly UPE article, non notable businessman CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm satisfied that the sources identified by Cunard are sufficient to pass the GNG. The coverage is certainly substantial, and it appears to come from leading national newspapers. While being the child of a notable person certainly does not make one notable, it also doesn't prevent one from being notable if there's coverage in reliable sources. Paid editing, etc. can be dealt with via the appropriate processes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC) !vote changed; see below. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more vanity spam, no independent notability from the company and what littel coverage there is of him is akin to gossip columns. YODADICAE👽 00:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The subject was extensively covered in the reputable major Philippine newspapers The Philippine Star and the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Philippine edition of Esquire. There is substantial biographical coverage about him, which I included in my complete rewrite of the article. Kevin Tan passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  The coverage spans nearly a decade: 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Extraordinary Writ is correct in noting that Kevin L. Tan's association with his notable father and with Alliance Global do not prevent him from becoming notable when there are multiple articles from reputable national newspapers written about his early life, business career, and personal life.

  The original creator may be an undisclosed paid editor and sockpuppet (I created a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zaid Zayd). But that should have no effect on this article. I do not have a conflict of interest with the subject, and I completely rewrote the article without using any of the prior content because it contained copyright violations. No content from the creator, who is a single-purpose account, remains.

  Pinging Spiderone (talk · contribs), who participated in this AfD and who wrote in the previous AfD, "Speedy delete - per WP:G5, if he is actually notable, someone that isn't a banned sock can write an article on him". I am not a banned sock, and I wrote an article about him because I think he is notable. Would you take review the rewritten article and the sources? Thanks,

  Cunard (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — @Cunard, please start by learning to WP:SIGN properly. honestly none of the sources you provided are cogent nor do they satisfy WP:RS. I suggest you brush up your grasp on both what counts as RS and also our notability criteria for inclusion before rushing to make a comment in an AFD, im going to be frank with you because I’m afraid all your entries in this AFD have been disruptive and yes I do believe a COI exits between yourself and the subject of our discussion. Thanks. Celestina007 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh good grief. Cunard? A well-regarded editor who has participated in north of 4000 AfDs? I respect your work combating UPE/spam, Celestina, but accusing Cunard of a COI is a bridge too far. I probably lean deletionist, but I recognize that having numerous articles in leading national newspapers is more than adequate to establish notability. I would urge you to take a closer look at the details here: they aren't what they seem to be at first glance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs).

        Celestina007, the sources I provided are all from reputable publications and are strong reliable sources. I do not understand your comment about signing properly as I have signed all my comments in this AfD properly. I do not have a conflict of interest with the subject and disagree that "all your entries in this AFD have been disruptive". AfD is not the proper venue to discuss conduct issues. If you have a conduct complaint against me regarding COI or disruptive AfD contributions, please report me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for the community to review and sanction me if appropriate. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        • You said to Cunard please start by learning to WP:SIGN and accusing Cunard of a COI! What the hell ugh ? He is a highly respected editor who has participated in north of 4000 AfDs. I suggest you please start by learning who Cunard is and then go on!! LOL What a big joke? 🤣 VocalIndia (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article has been significantly improved with additional reliable sources references by Cunard. So that WP:BASIC is passed. Btw, for other, see WP:IDONTLIKE! Why people are using AfD as a weapon ? VocalIndia (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — @VocalIndia, please let’s be mature and tone down the sarcasm. Now, if you claim the article has been improved then please point me to three reliable sources that discuss the “Businessman” with in-depth significant coverage. Furthermore please you are also welcome to read WP:ATA. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1 2 3 is good enough for me. Perhaps he shouldn't be notable, but that's not our call. Reliable sources have seen fit to discuss him in detail, so he's notable, full stop. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment — Not quite, the first source you used has all the tale marks of a covert sponsored piece and only discusses the subject of our discussion within the confines of him succeeding his father as the next ceo. The second source is basically an extended announcement that yet again discusses the subject of our discussion predominantly within the confines of him becoming the next ceo of his fathers organization which leads us to the third and last source you provided which states that the piece is an “advertisement” in the body of the article and furthermore appears to be an interview with the subject of our discussion which makes It immaterial as the source isn’t independent of the subject and GNG requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. You are welcome to go through WP:RS in your spare time. Furthermore notability is earned by merit and not my proximity to a notable entity or individual. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Celestina007 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose we're just going around in circles here, but I feel obligated to offer a few brief responses. 1) Nikkei Asian Review is not a purveyor of covert paid pieces: it is instead considered a reliable source for Asian financial news. 2) The third source nowhere says that it is an advertisement; I'm somewhat mystified at how you reached that conclusion. 3) Frankly, it's irrelevant that these pieces only discuss "the subject of our discussion within the confines of him succeeding his father". The point is that they discuss him, and it's immaterial why. In any event, the sources presented by Cunard provide a wide variety of unrelated coverage, including of his wedding and his other business endeavors. 4) The third source contains analysis by an independent journalist; the fact that an interview is included is irrelevant. 5) Suggesting that editors haven't gone through WP:RS is incivil, to say the least. 6) Notability is not "earned by merit": it is earned by coverage in reliable sources. If sources cover him (as they clearly do), we are not qualified to opine on a perceived lack of "merit". This is, of course, what WP:IDONTLIKEIT was written for. See, e.g., the perspectives offered in this AfD. In sum, I don't see this as a close call, and I'm no inclusionist. I hope other editors will take a close look at the sources and the guidelines in assessing this AfD, for initial impressions can be deceiving. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Semantics! notability is earned by “merit” and by “merit” I mean, the subject of the article satisfies our general notability criteria for inclusion or the relative SNG. You have made some inaccuracies in your analysis above, whilst I might not get into all, I’d address a few. You implied that multiple sources only discussing one aspect of the individual is irrelevant but WP:1E invalidates that. You implied that an interview can count towards notability, again, not quite, WP:GNG expressly states for it to be satisfied the source should be independent of the subject. Finally, You have referenced WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I’m not sure why, thus far my arguments have been solely policy based I’m unsure how that applies here. Finally, a reliable source and a reliable piece aren’t one and the same, every now and again reliable sources publish unreliable piece(s) and discernment is left for us.Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article as written prevents any possible claim of WP:BLP1E; as this essay cogently explains, any coverage of more than one event is sufficient to prevent invocation of BLP1E. In this case, there's far more than that: there's information about all sorts of additional biographical events, including previous work, his wedding, and his post-2018 actions. I could perhaps go either way on the interview, but, as this essay notes, interviews that contain the interviewer's "own thoughts" are indeed secondary. You've provided no evidence that the first source was paid for; the fact that it was written by a paid employee of a reliable news outlet would tend to dispel any such suggestion. And even if you don't like the three sources I've selected, there's a large reserve of additional stories in reliable press outlets above that I haven't even discussed. While I appreciate your zeal, I'd respectfully suggest that it would be better directed at real spam, not good-faith articles by good-faith contributors citing hosts of reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — As is customary, at this juncture let us allow the AFD play out. Celestina007 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because I read most of the coverage as a combination of fake interviews, covert influenced journalism, and non-critical adulation. There is no news source in the world that does not publish articles written or instigated by PR--the very job of a good press agent is to find what people will consider reliable sources to put their material in. This isn't exactly paid journalism, but it has the same effect. 15 years ago I was much less able to detect the more a sophisticated versions of it, but experience at WP has provided a thorough education. I've been opposed to Cunard on many similar AfDs, and sometimes, I am indeed convinced, when that happens, I admit it. But often at least some of the sources are not quite as significant or free from influence as they at first appear, and I think this will prove to be the case here. What I'm skeptical about is not that an article is impossible, but that an article based on the sources cited above and used in the present revision of the article [7] will not be NPOV. It will take a while for me to check them all, but looking at one quotation in the present version " According to The Manila Times, Tan's father 'trained him with love and by whip and example, as he rose up the ranks from a mere sales agent to the top executive posts across the family's diverse investments". I do not see how this style of writing can possibly be a reliable source. Similarly, sourced to the Philippine Star "When his father announced the appointment, he was a guest at a wedding being held in another country. He began getting numerous text messages complimenting him on the promotion. Despite having been trained to become the conglomerate's CEO and having collaborated with his father beginning when he was a 21-year-old, he did not know his father would appoint him at that moment" This statement about his private knowledge can have come only from him, and for a news source to report it as fact without qualification is not reliable journalism. And apparently these are the sources that are considered best! I'll look at the others tomorrow. I am not saying that Cunard could not write an NPOV article, for I know he can, but I am saying that this version is not a example of one.

As for the question of objective notability , the formal rule is to go by the sources and that usually works. It does not work quite so well when all the sources are influenced by PR, or when thee is repeated attempts to write a promotional article. A non-promotional article can only be written where there is something actually objective to write about. In that sense, the GNG guideline is only a failable shortcut. NOT TABLOID remains policy. A subject about which only such an article is possible is not suitable or an encyclopedia . Celestina's view of notability is in such cases a much more reliable approach; but of course I think that, for that is the view I have followed and advocated myself for many years in WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Noting that a WP:ATD exists via a merge/redirect to Alliance Global or Andrew Tan. Not voting on if the article should be kept or not as I'm not sure of the independence of the sources, the sources given are large national newspapers which normally would be an easy WP:GNG pass, but I do agree with some concerns other editors have given regarding the RS. Probably the best bet for this is to find some sources that are based outside of the Philippines, as his family's wealth can make a lot of influence to even the best sources. Jumpytoo Talk 06:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt Son of a rich man with plenty of money to create an extensive map of coverage, generated by PR agencies. Kevin Tan on being a leader, Kevin Tan on being a son, Kevin Tan on getting married, Kevin Tan on being a devout Catholic, but not one describing why he is even notable. Why is that? scope_creep^Talk 11:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Has anybody seen the latest trend in conversational advertising. Check out [[8]] They will take any content generated by a company, and create an article out of it, for your brand. scope_creep^Talk 11:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Cunard. Article needs a little more clean-up by removing unnecessary stuff in the "Business career" and "Personal life" sections. Other than that, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by the said user. As for the issue regarding WP:COI, the nominator's accusation against Cunard is baseless. There is no conflict of interest involved whatsoever as Cunard managed to look for sources and do a WP:HEY on the article. The current version is much different from the previous one, which looked promotional. I initially opted for a redirect to the company. But due to Cunard's improvements, I'll vote to keep it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really think those edits are improvememts? Ii think they made the article much was. The details of his wedding ceremony and religious observances are non-encyclopedic content. The material I quoted from above is the very model of getting promotional writing about oneself--I had originally thought the coi editor wrote it, but it was Cunard who found the promotional material in the newspapers and added it from them. WP:RS does not imply that everything in a source should be added, regardless of whether it's encyclopedic . If by any chance the article is kept, I will certainly delete almost all of it.. For a volunteer to deliberately add promotional content is almost as bad as when a coi editor does it. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, Cunard has made a lot of clean-up and improvements in the article. Nonetheless, I see a handful of unnecessary/trivial stuff which need to be removed. Among those are his wedding ceremony and religious observances, as you mentioned. The article still needs to be trimmed down a bit to become encyclopedic. Nonetheless, Cunard's edits are really improvements whatsoever. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply to this post again. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cunard has sufficiently demonstrated that the subject has had multiple coverage in reliable sources per the WP:GNG. —seav (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — The trio of Praxidicae, DGG and scope_creep's rationale is exactly what I’ve been trying to convey and they all did a better job then I did in properly articulating it. Covert influence journalism is a huge crisis we are currently facing, a reliable source and a reliable piece aren’t one and the same. If there’s a claim that the subject of an article is notable then the article must speak for itself thus far all sources appear to be extended announcements and all discuss the subject within the confines of him becoming the next CEO asides that there’s nothing that expressly proves their notability. This is covert spamming and nothing more, I’m not opposed to the article being re-created at a later time but as of now this is at best WP:TOOSOON and WP:BARE notability. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:BIO per Cunard's argument. The sources presented above are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Small variations in notability either direction will not greatly damage WP. What will cause serious harm is if we accept promotionalism or articles based on promotionalism , because that will make WP pointless--it'll be no better than Google.. This is pure promotionalism from beginning to end. Google handles this as well as it deserves, as we should stay as far away as we can from them. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - first, UPE should never be encouraged. I appreciate Cunard's efforts here, but the coverage is heavily PR weighted. As per the nom's arguments and DGG's. Onel5969 ^{TT me}
• Keep. Satisfied that the sources identified by Cunard are sufficient to pass the GNG or BASIC. I understand there are many WP:IDONTLIKE because of COI issue. However we should follow the rules. Taung Tan (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can see why you'd relist this one, because I for one would hate to be the closer. The debate has burned a little too hotly at times, which is a shame. I have for some time now admired Celestina007's ardent stance on UPE and note Cunard is an editor of long standing and reputation, who has attempted in good faith to clean up an Augean mess here. However, I do not believe even the improved, rewritten, article is balanced in tone - and note that the sources do not provide sufficient notability for Tan as distinct from his father. I truly do not believe anyone here, standing back and taking a look at the article, would agree that the world needs to know, via this encyclopaedia, that "Kevin Tan met Michelle See, at the Opus Restaurant and Lounge at Resorts World Manila when he was at the birthday party of his friend Ricardo Po while she had delayed her dinner owing to her unpunctual friends." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The person is notable only because of his father. However, instead of salting, a redirect to Andrew Tan should be created and protected. The sources that were provided by Cunard are from reliable websites, but the sources themselves are not reliable enough. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete As per nom and per multiple past violations. Celestina007 and DGG rational are on to point we don't Wikipedia to like Google where we can host anything we want. Sanketio31 (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per DGG's comments. The sources look good until you look a little deeper. Angryapathy (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that a protected redirect is a good alternative to deletion for situation like this.. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Celestina, DGG and Alexandermcnabb. JBchrch talk 12:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been mulling over this one for quite a while, and so, with the benefit of further reflection, I'll !vote Delete. This is a difficult case for one major reason: the relevant principles are effectively in contradiction. I remain convinced that Tan does indeed pass the GNG, having received, for better or worse, substantial coverage in reputable press outlets. Yet DGG's invocation of WP:NOT is also valid: in my view, the sources are so adulatory as to prevent the writing of a truly encyclopedic article. The question now is how to break the gridlock. Three points present themselves: 1) WP:NOT, as policy, supersedes the GNG, which is only a guideline. 2) The GNG creates only a presumption of notability. While that presumption is rarely rebutted, in this case it is in my view sufficient. 3) Under WP:DEL-REASON, which is also policy, WP:NOT poses its own reason to delete, independent of notability. These three facts convince me that this case presents the unusual situation in which passing the GNG isn't good enough. I have no objections to an appropriate redirect. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:15, 5 June 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.

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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinje, Iowa

Vinje, Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Once again, we have one of those Iowa "communities" that appears to be a general locale rather than a town-like settlement. There are the usual pig and cattle references, and also a soil series, and a bucketload of false hits because Vinje is apparently a pretty common Norwegian name; it is also the name of two "municipalities" (actually more like what in the USA would be called a township) in Norway. Anyway, the Post-Bulletin article discloses that the building that is now a bar has been a whole series of commercial enterprises over the years; meanwhile the Lutheran church a quarter mile to the west, which used to be in the middle of its cemetery across the road until the 1940s-'50s, is the only other building anyone says is "in" Vinje. There is a house behind the bar, and there used to be one diagonally across the intersection from the bar, but putting it all together, the "community" comes across as a fairly diffuse area of farms rather than a town-ish concentration. And while I'm at it, the supposed population of 2 is a cutesy way of the saying that the proprietors of the bar live there. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In addition to the bar (and its previous incarnations), Vinje also had a creamery at one point ([9] [10]), and a 1961 article about a robbery at the grocery store described it as "a community of a few homes and a grocery store". There are also a fair number of relatively recent obituaries of Vinje residents, which makes me think the population may be more than 2 after all. All and all, it seems to be a fairly small community but a community nonetheless. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was able to expand the article fairly quickly. This was a platted community with a population of 23 (in 1924) which appears on a number of historic maps from the 1880s to the 1930s. Vinje was noted in its heyday. The church and cemetery in Vinje still operate, and the community still has a bar and some houses. Since notability is not temporary, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unlike other AfDs in the same category, this community seems to pass the second bullet point of WP:GEOLAND as a unrecognized populated area with non trivial coverage in multiple sources as noted above. Even if the population today is only 2, there's still enough coverage about the place from history for an article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG as notability is not temporary. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above.4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 12 June 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.

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 redirect to BGYO#Filmography. Sandstein 17:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BGYO videography

BGYO videography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article includes performance videos as music videos just to show that the videography contains several items. A separate article should not be considered if the performance videos are removed. Cairo ● 💌 ● ✒️ 03:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to BGYO#Filmography: Only the official music videos can be merged to the target article. It's not necessary to have a filmography of all of their performances. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 30 May 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.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of regimes

List of regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't make any sense of this article, not least because the countries are indexed in a confusing manner; it looks like the article is poorly titled as well as it seems instead to be a list of countries by current regime — in 2008! The article is based entirely on a comparison of the Democracy-Dictatorship Index, Polity data series, and MaxRange index in 2008, already well out of date at time of creation in 2014. The two indices with their own articles already include the full list of countries there. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Barely encyclopedic, there is very little context to this table. As well as the data provided being well outdated. Ajf773 (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Borderline nonsense article with no discernible focus or purpose. I can’t make heads or tails of what it’s even trying to be. Dronebogus (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR template since 2014, agree with all of the above. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SYNTH, OR, NPOV .... how many violations do I see before me? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:26, 29 May 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.

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 List of Bionicle media. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Bionicle: The Journey to One

Lego Bionicle: The Journey to One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short web television series that received essentially no media coverage aside from its announcement. With no critical response to speak of, the main feature of the article - an episode history - could easily be merged to List of Bionicle media, which has a section for the TV show. Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Bionicle media. Right now nothing I see suggests WP:NMEDIA or such is met. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 7 June 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.

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. Functionally everyone agrees it meets BCAST, but no keep !voters have indicated it meets GNG. As such, this AfD has pivoted on whether an explanatory supplement that endeavours to carve out a partial SNG exception to the GNG (a la NPROF) is sufficient policy basis.

The phrasing of GNG indicates it applies without explicit exemption, and an explanatory supplement just does not have capability to grant that.

However, should NMEDIA be promoted to a guideline in any form similar to its current state, this article would immediately be eligible for re-creation as if soft-deleted. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DZRI

DZRI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Apart from digging this up, which isn't much use (and DZRi only leads to redlinks), I couldn't find anything that would argue for keeping this. Fails GNG, doesn't pass 'Go', doesn't collect £200. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The station is licensed by the NTC as it indicates an operator having a station. It was initially issued a PA per 2019 NTC Listing. It was only last year's listing when it was given a callsign. There's a PIA article which indicates part of the station's programming. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Superastig: thanks for the link. I must've forgotten that one upon searching. SBKSPP (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:BCAST per Astig's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - neither keep !vote addresses WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: After you put NMEDIA through the ringer, it came back out the other side with renewed precedence-setting consensus. Let it go. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Astig. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Superastig.--Tdl1060 (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:GNG. Simply meeting WP:BCAST cannot save the article, as it is not a SNG exempt from the GNG requirement - we need sources to demonstrate that this is a notable organisation, otherwise we'd just be a directory of radio stations, which also fails WP:NOT. Unfortunately, I can't find any, but perhaps my search has been too limited. SportingFlyer T·C 14:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• NMEDIA is a notability recommendation. Notability guideline discussion to setup talking points for the RfC to make NMEDIA/BCAST a Guideline is ongoing at WT:N. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's only a "recommendation," then it clearly must comply with WP:GNG, meaning we need reliable secondary sources in order to show it's eligible for a stand-alone article. Even if it becomes a guideline, the vast majority of guidelines either require the GNG to be met, are written in such a way that GNG will be met if the guideline is met, or provide even stricter guidance than merely meeting GNG, so having this become a guideline isn't really relevant for this discussion considering there aren't enough sources to justify a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NMEDIA doesn't reflect community consensus, so I'll simply apply the more sound GNG, which this article doesn't pass. (This, I note, does not appear to have been disputed.) Unless NMEDIA is endorsed by the community at an RfC, it doesn't present a valid reason to keep the article. (Carving out wide-ranging exceptions to the GNG is usually a bad idea, in my view.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:04, 12 June 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.

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando María Muñoz y Borbón, 2nd Duke of Tarancón

Fernando María Muñoz y Borbón, 2nd Duke of Tarancón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails at WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. No reliable source exists regarding this person. JayzBox (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning delete I can find Spanish language genealogical works which appear to ratify the basics of his place in the nobility, but other than that I'm not seeing any biographical data. The paucity of info suggests a lack of notability, particularly since I'm not seeing English language works that mention him. Mangoe (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I learned today that Tarancón is a municipality of Spain located in the province of Cuenca, Castilla–La Mancha. I found that out because I was looking for anything about the history of Tarancón that might substantiate any notability for our boy Fernando. Given that he was the duke of a two-line stub, I think we can safely assume that his notability is passing to the point where he wouldn't trouble WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is an entry in the biographical dictionary of the Real Academia de la Historia (link), some coverage in La Nueva España (link) and appears in many books, although I had no access to verify the extent of coverage. Alternatively, move to Ducado de Montmorot [es] together with other minor dukes of the same dukedom. MarioGom (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nobody's saying he didn't exist, just that his existence was in no way notable. Did he invent the self-propelling hydrant or challenge our knowledge of the mushroom? Lead a nation to war? Discover Chile? No, he did not. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  An article in a major reference work of Spanish history is a pretty good start for GNG. MarioGom (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it does point to a life of absolute lack of notability for any reason other than being a very minor aristocrat? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There are people with great achievements who lack reliable sources to back our notability criteria, and viceversa. MarioGom (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the sources provided by User:MarioGom - which I've now added to the article - are more than enough to meet WP:GNG / ANYBIO. This nomination, like so many, could have been avoided by a better WP:BEFORE. Ingratis (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The nomination remains bang on and it's not a question of a 'better WP:BEFORE'. The guy's not notable. WP:NOTGENEALOGY. He was nobody, he did nothing, he represents nothing; he existed, presumably passed on his genes and passed. He has left no enduring monument in structure, deed or thought. Errr, that's it. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - 1) The nom User:JayzBox claimed that there was no reliable source about this person: this is untrue, as a better WP:BEFORE would have made clear. 2) User:MarioGom has already dealt above with your other point. The requirement at WP:ANYBIO is that "the person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)", which is what the DBE of the Real Academia is. Ingratis (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It should not be part of our deletion process to denigrate the subject of the article, even if not a BLP. Especially when statements like he did nothing" means at the most he did nothing which I so far have been able to find" or refers to a parody list of unlikely accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect to Agustín Fernando Muñoz y Sánchez, 1st Duke of Riánsares - The DBe, as a national dictionary, seems to be reliable, but meeting criterion 3 of WP:ANYBIO isn't a guarantee of inclusion. WP:ANYBIO is prefaced with in the previous section: "... Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

The DBe entry focuses on his family, titles, and important events in his life, so we can reliably source that information, but I don't see any other information in that entry and the current Wikipedia article to show me why he is notable in his own right. Maybe Spanish-language sources can be found to expand upon this, but I'm not seeing notability at this time. Aranya (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC) (changed vote 03:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

• Some people are notable for who they are, not for what they do. But if that's too much to swallow, WP:ATD - redirect to Agustín Fernando Muñoz y Sánchez, 1st Duke of Riánsares. Ingratis (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I've appended my original vote with an alternative. What I meant in my rationale is that I believe the DBe entry does not highlight either of those - it just lists some biographical details routine for nobility. In the same vein, the two sentences on him in the La Nueva España article merely inform us about his family history and titles and then his marriage to Eladia Bernaldo de Quirós. Sorry if I'm being redundant. Aranya (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG and WP:ANYBIO per the sources provided by MarioGom. So poor WP:IDONTLIKE are arrived here. Best, VocalIndia (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG thanks to MarioGom's sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per MarioGom's sources.4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 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.