Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/South America: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:33, 10 December 2023

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to South America. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|South America|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to South America. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/South America/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Purge page cache

South America

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 List of Guyana women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 18:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Lynch

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) No indication of notability, either. JTtheOG (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Canada, Caribbean, and South America. JTtheOG (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:14, 11 December 2023 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Georgetown

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South America, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is about bilateral relations rather than the embassy itself. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Unnecessary content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 6 December 2023 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Paramaribo

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

The article is a content fork of the bilateral relations article, and says nothing about its purported topic, i.e. the US embassy. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is more about the bilateral relations than the embassy itself. LibStar (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South America, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yet another content fork created by Kjerish and then reverted by them when someone--correctly--changed it to a redirect. Owen× ☎ 00:03, 6 December 2023 (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.

Argentina

Argentina women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NORG or WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Argentina. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Part of a bundled nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team) so it can not be Soft Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Movistar Arena (Buenos Aires)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at Movistar Arena (Buenos Aires) (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Contains only events since the end of 2019, only concerts. Completely unreferenced. mikeblas (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and Argentina. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is "soft deletion"? What attributes make an article eligible or ineligible for soft deletion? -- mikeblas (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, mikeblas,

For policy, see WP:NOQUORUM. Basically, Soft Deletion is treating an AFD discussion with low attendance as a PROD, proposed deletion. They are seen as uncontroversial deletions and if an AFD closes as a Soft Deletion, this allows an editor to ask for the article's restoration at WP:REFUND. AFD closures are not eligible for a Soft Deletion if a) there are any Keep votes (hence deletion is not uncontroversial) or b) an article has been PROD'd before or brought to AFD before. Does this explain things sufficiently? Many AFDs that have been relisted but have no participation or just one editor arguing for "Delete" are closed as Soft Deletions. It can be seen as preferable to additional relistings which may or may not result in additional participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I hadn't heard of that AfD outcome before. But your note is confusing; isn't every AfD "already at AFD"? Therefore, none would ever be eligible for "Soft Deletion". -- mikeblas (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant a previous AFD discussion, prior to the one that the article is currently involved in. And Soft Deletion isn't uncommon, if you look through a past AFD daily log page, you'll see plenty of discussions with that closure especially these days now that the number of editors participating in AFD discussions has decreased. With some AFDs, we are lucky to have 3 or more editors voicing their arguments unless it is a hot button subject like those involving current political situations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I relisted this after a "procedural keep" vote in a bulk nomination. I was told that there wouldn't be prejudice against re-listing it, but now I'm finding that there is. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Bolivia

Brazil

List of Atlético Mineiro transfers 2011

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

All of these lists do not pass WP:SALAT as they are too specific and most are already in their club season's article. Club specific youth-to-first team moves are not notable enough to be stand-alone lists. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vitor Vieira

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Search did no result in any significant secondary coverage. Demt1298 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Absolutely nothing about him in the Brazilian sports media. Svartner (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deolane Bezerra

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

Refs fail WP:SIRS. Possibly notable for Operation Integration, but that would mean just WP:BIO1E, so fails WP:BIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Law, and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:RECENTISM. There is nothing notable about her, other than being investigated for a crime. Svartner (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only created a stub so others could expand. The original article has 66 sources. It's not just a crime, she has a lot more to add. At least draftify again so I can work it a little more. Web-julio (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be your !vote to keep or draftify? Draft space is indeed the right place to work on an article when it is currently lacking enough sources. Please take this knowledge to your future self when working on other drafts. I agree that returning the article to draft is an acceptable alternative to deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above discussion. This is a case of WP: BITE. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject lacks the needed coverage from reliable secondary sources to meet the WP:NORG/WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Brazil. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There is no Brazil women's under-18 team, only under-20 and under-17. Svartner (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been to AFD before as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil Proposed deletions

No articles are proposed for deletion at this time

Chile

Klaus Schnellenkamp

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

Request for deletion of the Wikipedia article about Klaus Schnellenkamp due to lack of relevance according to the WP guidelines. These state that public reporting on the person in question must be independent of time or over a long period of time. However, there was only selective reporting, and this was done around 15 years ago. Hence the deletion request!KSW72 (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)KSWKSW72 (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Germany, and Chile. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Suggest discussion on NFF wording continue elsewhere and be clarified, if needed. Star Mississippi 01:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diablo (upcoming film)

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

Unreleased film, not expected to release until 2025. Does not meet WP:NFF or WP:SIGCOV, and won't until release. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should be created on release day. AutorisedUser673 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that is a joke, that’s funny. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Filming complete; reliable sources cover production with significant information allowing to build and expand so that the page can be retained and wait for reviews that will come probably around the time of the expected release. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Chile and United States of America. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why does it matter that "filming is complete" - the film is not being released until 2025. WP:NFF is clear: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. There is nothing notable about the production itself, and the film has not yet been released, so... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does matter whether filming has started (or, for that matter, is complete) or not, for obvious reasons and for policy-based reasons. As for the rest, I beg to differ. We have reliable media outlets offering significant coverage about cast, plot, production, etc, so I will stand by my Keep. NFF is clear, yes, maybe, and production seems notable enough per the guidelines. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard to have articles once films have begun filming.★Trekker (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFF statement above. Filming has begun and as Deadline Hollywood has reported, the filming has wrapped. That said, most citations about the filming and completion were not stated by their said sources in the article and were really mangled. I've adjusted them now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder that "filming complete" is the requirement for films that don't have independently notable production, and doesn't in itself mean that we need a standalone article on the film yet. Are there reasons to keep beyond "meets the bare minimum"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. The general requirement for films that don't have independently notable production (ie films meeting NFF), is that filming has begun, not the wrapping of filming (which implies it has started, obviously). Or did you mean something else? As for "meets the bare minimum", well, I am not sure this is strictly the case, but if it is, then, what's the issue? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The state of filming is unimportant (and I'm not sure why it's included in the NFF statement Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.) - it's clearly just confusing. The important detail is that absent the production somehow being significant, the film a) needs to have been released, and b) otherwise satisfies WP:N via WP:SIGCOV in independent WP:RS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

??????? Then change the guideline. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Colombia

Luis Carlos Vélez

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

Uncited for years and promotional. (I took out some of the more obvious promotion but some remains, such as the professional head shot). ... discospinster _talk 22:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Economics, and Colombia. ... discospinster _talk 22:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hm... this is a hard one. On the one hand, being a columnist for Semana, and his radio work at RCN (one of the two largest media companies in Colombia, where radio is still pretty important media) suggests some degree of notability. However, the only sources I can find about the guy are articles in trade focused magazines that I'm not sure are RS, or articles in RS with clear COI (i.e. a Semana profile). Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuador

Paraguay

Peru

Chicas Terremoto del Folklore

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

Non-notable music band. fails WP:BAND. Cabrils (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article already includes one Spanish-language reference, https://rpp.pe/musica/conciertos/chicas-terremoto-del-folklore-parten-de-gira-a-chile-noticia-204114 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Peru. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay

Mathías Tomás

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

No independent WP:SIGCOV, just stats pages and team-affiliated sources, for this football player and thus no pass of WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. Please ping me if I missed anything in my WP:BEFORE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Greece, and Uruguay. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is what I could come up with from Uruguay. However, I feel that one of the editors who are familiar with South American football should weigh in, i.e. User:BrazilianDude70, User:ImSnot, User:Unknown Temptation. Not because I have any anticipation whether they want to keep or delete, but because they know the language and the regional media well. Geschichte (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the tag. What I see on the statistics alone is that the player has spent more time in Greece, which is not my expertise. He was a regular player in 2023-24 Super League for Panserraikos and now into the second season, so I can theorise there is wider coverage. However, this comes with the challenge of searching his name in the Greek alphabet. Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Greek spelling is Ματίας Τομάς. I've found lots of results, but Google is listing match summaries. If there is a website which uses tags, you could follow the tag and see exactly what they are writing about him. Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, my BEFORE included the Greek transliteration and I didn’t turn anything up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability whatsoever. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela

Venezuela Solidarity Campaign

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

WP:SIRS requires that sources establishing notability need to be "completely independent of the article subject" and reliable. I could only find pro-Venezuelan-government sources about this organization. I find it dubious whether these sources establish notability, therefore I am nominating this for deletion. Janhrach (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and Venezuela. Janhrach (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There does seem to be some decent coverage in books. I'll have a more thorough look later. I'm unsure how and on what basis you can characterise particular media sources as "pro-Venezuelan-government". What media sources which are "anti-Venezuelan-government" and are they acceptable to establish notability? AusLondonder (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Google Books results, it seems most are either citations of VSC, or trivial mentions. That was my first glance on the search results, but I do not deny there may be books that provide substantial coverage.

By "pro-Venezuelan-government", I meant, for example, Venezuelanalysis and the Liberation News of Party for Socialism and Liberation or other party-affiliated sites. I do not mean that all "pro-Venezuelan-government" do not establish notability – I expressed myself poorly. I doubt that specific sources establish notability because of their partisanness, with SIRS mandating absolute independence from the subject. I am no expert on notability, I could be mistaken. Janhrach (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the second glance, these mentioned sources do not seem to indicate notability for other, more sound reasons, so my remark about them is kind-of moot. Janhrach (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the breadth of trade union endorsements gives a good indication of the organisation's widespread support within the labour movement (including the largest UK unions). A small sample of reporting over time: Morning Star, Sydney Morning Herald (mention), Vice. WP:NEXIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being significantly supported by the labor movement does not imply notablity; coverage is required. As for the sources you provided, respectively:
1. Some coverage, independence from the subject unclear, reliability unclear.
2. The source is not accessible for me because of a paywall.
3. Very little coverage on VSC.
—Janhrach (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent and reliable sources that establish its notability. Most sources referenced, such as Venezuelanalysis or Liberation News, are clearly partisan and closely tied to political ideologies that align with the subject, which undermines their neutrality. IMHO, organizations that engage in propaganda should be approached with circumspection, as their primary function is to distort reality to serve specific interests. Wilfredor (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may disagree politically with the group but describing them as engaging in propaganda is rather misleading. Irrespective of that, the motives of an organisation do not negate otherwise credible claims to notability. You have also failed to acknowledge the other sources, including books, providing coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unconvinced by the policy-based defences so far. If we put political opinions aside, this group has only trivial mentions in reliable sources, which does not satisfy WP:RS. There are many groups worldwide that support the Bolivarian Revolution and the current government of Venezuela. What makes this particular group notable? Perhaps a reliable source that significantly covers the group would be able to answer this question, but so far nobody has provided such a source. Yue🌙 21:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources have been provided multiple times, including newspapers and books. AusLondonder (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Otero Lárez

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

BLP that fails WP:SIGCOV. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Venezuela. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Beauty pageants. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mister Venezuela 1999 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC) (but he had some significant roles in notable telenovelas, so not opposed to Keep if other users suggest that outcome)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I initially found this lacking per NBIO, as per the nominator, and draftified this so other interested parties could improve it, but an editor deemed that incorrect per WP:DONTDRAFTIFY. So just delete it. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, if good sources are not found for all the content (which is not that much, it should not cost much...) then there is a risk that other sources (databases) will copy us and false information will be distributed thanks to Wikipedia. --181.197.42.150 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? He is in every series cited (and much more) (I checked and for all I know, he might even meet WP:NACTOR btw). It seems your are raising a cleanup issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I favour a Keep: not only does he seem to meet WP:NACTOR, see SpWP please) but above all he meets WP:ANYBIO, which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Lárez was Mister Venezuela 1999, which seems significant enough.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not, from long established consensus. Celebrity awards are generally non-notable, unless the internationally known like the oscars. scope_creep^Talk 07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the guideline says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (which Mr Venezuela seems to be) and nothing about being internationally known (which Mr Venezuela is, being part of international pageants selections, btw) let alone about like the oscars (why not the Nobel prizes to put the bar even higher?), and that "long-established consensus", although it might indeed exist, should not prevail over the current guideline in my opinion. Thank you all the same. NB-You might want to change the guideline and indicate that limitation if such a consensus really exists and is indeed accepted by a majority of users. I certainly would oppose such a change myself, so please ping me if you start such a discussion about it, thanks. (I do not think, anyway, that Mr Universe nor Mr Venezuela can be called "celebrity awards", not in a derogative way at least.) I'll therefore stand by my !vote, if I may. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the guideline says but you dont understand the different classes of awards and what they are actually worth, and what folk strive and crave for. Its not this. Its right down the list of significance and that is consensus. Indeed your !vote is your !vote, but this has all be discussed beforehand, years ago. If you have WP:THREE sources, please post them up. Also its worth noting an award isn't generally sufficient on its own, unless its a really good award, likely a decent medal for example. If was a good award, its a good indication the person is notable. If was a good award and there was no coverage, I wouldn't have sent to Afd. I would have spent time trying to update it and add sources. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 21:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==South America==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chantal Lynch}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Georgetown}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Paramaribo}}