The result was keep without prejudice to merging Salvio giuliano 23:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
No refs on the page for many years. I found single line (sometimes single word) refs in some RS but there seems to be considerable uncertainty about basic facts in the sources. Seems to be very difficult to verify any of the facts on the page or whether any is simply personal opinion of previous editors. JMWt ( talk) 11:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I also think it is quite extreme to think that English tribal chieftains would be covered by WP:POLITICIAN.Why, when anyone who sat in a sub-national legislature for a single day is? A king is a damned sight more notable than most legislators. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. In terms of WP:GNG we appear to have a bunch of sources that are reliable and solid as such but, based on the discussion here, there is concurrently an open question whether this counts as
significantcoverage. As it is now, I find myself leaning keep for reasons I'm not quite able to articulate, but wouldn't detest a merge to some list along the lines of WP:PAGEDECIDE either. For those with access to the references (I'm unable to view them on Google Books, for whatever reason), I'd much appreciate brief descriptions of whether we're talking a few sentences here-and-there, or something on the size of, say, at least a few paragraphs. ResonantDistortion and Necrothesp, I assume you have access to the refs you added to the article? - Ljleppan ( talk) 08:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
automatic notability:
People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards [additional criteria]. 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.Specifically, see WP:BIOSPECIAL which describes what ought to be done when additional criteria are met, but sourcing is insufficient for the basic criteria at WP:NBASIC. Ljleppan ( talk) 14:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
does not guarantee that a subject should be included, and NOPAGE asks us to consider whether a standalone is appropriate for the subject even if it's notable. If all we have covering this person is mere documentation of his existence, there's no reason that should be in a separate page. I'd also support redirecting. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
additional criteria. Sources identified so far are obviously insufficiently comprehensive to reach the
significantaspect of NBASIC. The subject thus fails NBASIC. At the same time, there are credible arguments that the subject could be seen as reaching some of the Additional Criteria, namely WP:NPOL. However, as noted in the relevant section,
meeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Indeed, unambiguous language in the Special Cases section of NBIO, WP:BIOSPECIAL states that in cases of
failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteriawe must
merge the article into a broader article providing context. Please ping me if a better merge/redirect target, or additional sourcing to fulfill NBASIC, is identified. - Ljleppan ( talk) 13:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
The result was keep without prejudice to merging Salvio giuliano 23:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
No refs on the page for many years. I found single line (sometimes single word) refs in some RS but there seems to be considerable uncertainty about basic facts in the sources. Seems to be very difficult to verify any of the facts on the page or whether any is simply personal opinion of previous editors. JMWt ( talk) 11:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I also think it is quite extreme to think that English tribal chieftains would be covered by WP:POLITICIAN.Why, when anyone who sat in a sub-national legislature for a single day is? A king is a damned sight more notable than most legislators. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. In terms of WP:GNG we appear to have a bunch of sources that are reliable and solid as such but, based on the discussion here, there is concurrently an open question whether this counts as
significantcoverage. As it is now, I find myself leaning keep for reasons I'm not quite able to articulate, but wouldn't detest a merge to some list along the lines of WP:PAGEDECIDE either. For those with access to the references (I'm unable to view them on Google Books, for whatever reason), I'd much appreciate brief descriptions of whether we're talking a few sentences here-and-there, or something on the size of, say, at least a few paragraphs. ResonantDistortion and Necrothesp, I assume you have access to the refs you added to the article? - Ljleppan ( talk) 08:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
automatic notability:
People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards [additional criteria]. 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.Specifically, see WP:BIOSPECIAL which describes what ought to be done when additional criteria are met, but sourcing is insufficient for the basic criteria at WP:NBASIC. Ljleppan ( talk) 14:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
does not guarantee that a subject should be included, and NOPAGE asks us to consider whether a standalone is appropriate for the subject even if it's notable. If all we have covering this person is mere documentation of his existence, there's no reason that should be in a separate page. I'd also support redirecting. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
additional criteria. Sources identified so far are obviously insufficiently comprehensive to reach the
significantaspect of NBASIC. The subject thus fails NBASIC. At the same time, there are credible arguments that the subject could be seen as reaching some of the Additional Criteria, namely WP:NPOL. However, as noted in the relevant section,
meeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Indeed, unambiguous language in the Special Cases section of NBIO, WP:BIOSPECIAL states that in cases of
failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteriawe must
merge the article into a broader article providing context. Please ping me if a better merge/redirect target, or additional sourcing to fulfill NBASIC, is identified. - Ljleppan ( talk) 13:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)