|
|||||||||||
Olympics articles
I found a way to grab most of the annoying stubs (stub articles about non-medalists with no other info) out of the categories using WP:PET. Just in the 1900 Olympics articles alone I found over 200 using this filter. User:XyNq/sandbox/1900 Olympics deletion candidates ~XyNqtc 19:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- That is crazy. Especially since the 1900 Olympics was much smaller than later ones in number of participants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert: I created a few reports of all offending Olympics articles for the 1900-2000 games that were less than 1kB (about 2,000 articles). Most of these should be fine to delete and wouldn't get pushed out of a batch for some reason, although there's well over 7,500 just in the 1900-2000 summer catalogues if you increase the maximum article size to 2.5kB. This is a mess ~XyNqtc 21:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- A lot of the stubs seem to either be from retired users, or
Lugnuts.Actually Lugnuts seems to be behind the stubs with infoboxes, which usually bump the article above 1kB. ~XyNqtc 21:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)- Many of which he turned out in less than 5 minutes. In fact sometimes he turned out 10 or so such bios in less than 15 minutes. He seems willing to figut tooth and nail against any deletion of any Olympian bio anywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- A lot of the stubs seem to either be from retired users, or
- @Johnpacklambert: I created a few reports of all offending Olympics articles for the 1900-2000 games that were less than 1kB (about 2,000 articles). Most of these should be fine to delete and wouldn't get pushed out of a batch for some reason, although there's well over 7,500 just in the 1900-2000 summer catalogues if you increase the maximum article size to 2.5kB. This is a mess ~XyNqtc 21:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- That is crazy. Especially since the 1900 Olympics was much smaller than later ones in number of participants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- In some ways the worst Olympic related articles are the stubs on people who were competitors in the Olympic arts competition. This competition was not even close to major enough in the arts world to make someone notable for competing, and probably not for even medaling. A lot of the articles only mention that participation. If that is all there is on them, then we pretty much can delete them. I have tried, but often there is more on the people, so this is a whole group of articles that over emphasize sport related endevor at the cost of even understanding the full arts career of the person, let alone their full life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- another way to look at things is Olympian articles that have only one or two sources, especially when those sources are sports tables that say nothing substantive about the individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
1901 births
Category:1901 births has 5,808 entries. I am about to revies it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- This category now that I have review it now has 5,726 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Danish expatriates in the Russian Empire
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220620190212im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
A tag has been placed on Category:Danish expatriates in the Russian Empire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Yugoslav emigrants to Greece
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220620190212im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
A tag has been placed on Category:Yugoslav emigrants to Greece indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Ned Brooks
Ned Brooks may well be notable for bein moderator of meet the press. We need to have some actual sources though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
A thought
I'm thinking the battlegrounding on his talk page has gone on long enough, and it probably won't end well for anyone if it continues. Maybe it's time to stop posting AFD notifications? They are not compulsory after all, and he has all his kittens watchlisted anyway. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Only if you promose to stand up for me when he tries to take me to ANI for not notifying him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- What if you ask Lugnuts if they'd prefer if you stopped the notifications? I think that has helped in other cases.
- It might also be worth noting that an awful lot of the notifications you have posted there have ended up as not being deleted - by my calculation around 80% of the recentish ones that I could find - with 20% being flat out kept because sources were found; in the 20% of cases where deletion was the outcome I'd argue that there's a case for redirect in all of them as well fwiw. There are ATDs in most of the cases you are sending to AfD - perhaps that's a more appropriate route to embark upon?
- I'm not watching this page and only came across this discussion by chance. If you want me to reply to anything you'll need to ping me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I and other editors have tried to redirect such articles. Every time we redirect Lugnuts reverts it. so taking the pages to AfD is the only way to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's highly unlikely they would, having previously requested that others stop. Anyhow, any contribution I made to such a hypothetical case would be based on the guidance, which explicitly states "not required", and that such actions are obviously not been treated as "courteous", which is leading to non-constructive interactions. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have to admit it is also frustrating that every time I explain how there are other people with the same name who are just as likely to be search targets and that as such the name is not a good redirect, my statements are ignored and Lugnuts just route votes to redirect without even saying anything as to why he things the sports person is a better presumed search target than anyone else with the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Deprodding of Martín de Álzaga (racing driver)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from Martín de Álzaga (racing driver), which you proposed for deletion. Feel free to nominate this article at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, as a more detailed discussion there may allow the establishment of whether or not the subject meets the WP:GNG.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}}
back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Natalie Robinson Cole
We have two listed sources on Natalie Robinson Cole but they both have the same writer. I am not seeing how the article at present would pass GNG, since 2 works by the same creator are not 2 indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
William Q. De Funiak
William Q. De Funiak may be notable. However our one actual source is the obitruary from the Santa Cruz Newspaper. He lived in Santa Cruz. This is not enough to show anyone is notable. If his works were actually widely used by law students he would be notable, but we need more than an obituary blandly stating such to show the truth of such an assetion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Celesta Geyer
I just added a bunch of sources to Celesta Geyer. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Stamp AFDS
Your opinion is requested here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:People of British Guiana
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220620190212im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
A tag has been placed on Category:People of British Guiana indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
BLP watch
Wikipedia currently has 1,041,260 articles in Category:Living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Ben Hibbs
Ben Hibbs may have been a notable journalist. However we need more sources that treat him more broadly to show that. The source from the Eisenhower papers is not enough on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Nominating your own articles for deletion...
...is not good use of the time of the editors who are already over-worked at AfD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julian_F._Harrington
Recommend you just drafity and then delete your own article please. CT55555 (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @CT55555:, one can't unilaterally draftify published articles, particularly articles that are eleven years old and have been edited by others. So, bad advice, and since the nom was entirely legit there's no call for scolding the editor. Herostratus (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think I was scolding, certainly not any more than you seem to be scolding me. A PROD would be a sensible path forward if anyone is too bureaucratic to consider that someone can't drafity ta 4 line stub that they created because it has a handful of minor edits from others. CT55555 (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | |
Nine years! |
---|
Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Russ McLeod
Hello Mr. Lambert.
I hope you do not mind a direct question. I came across the article for Russ McLeod and could find no sources to show this person meets GNG. I am not very familiar with deletion discussions on NFL players, so I wondered if you had any thoughts on whether it was worth bringing the article to AfD. Thank you! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Deletion vote for Easley High School
You voted to delete an article for a Easley High School, which is on the National Register for Historic Places (see [1].) You are the only delete vote thus far, I wonder if you would consider changing your vote so that a WP:SNOW close could be made? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- The nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Your delete vote prevents a snow close. Would you consider reviewing the article, which has many, many references and withdrawing your vote? Jacona (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Soviet militants
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220620190212im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
A tag has been placed on Category:Soviet militants indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Holland McCombs
Holland McCombs may be notable. We would need far better sourcing than we have at present to demonstrate this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Please refer to me as Mr. Lambert
I would ask that all others please refer to me as Mr. Lambert, unless using my complete user name, preferably written out as John Pack Lambert.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Mr. Lambert, you may want to consider changing your username. Jacona (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Or people could either respect his wishes or at least not refer to him by his surname which is both disrespectful and patronising. Spartaz Humbug! 18:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
IMDb is not a reliable source
We have a policy that states that IMDb is not a reliable source. It is hard to believe that it is actually being enforced since we have thousands of articles where that is the only source at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Could you please provide a link.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Ani
Please see the discussion I have raised over Lugnuts' behaviour to you. Spartaz Humbug! 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion is at [[2]] 18:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- John Pack Lambert (this seems so formal but I will respect your wishes), I don't say anything often unless it's to try and help you. Otherwise I stay out of your way and let you do your thing because I believe it is a positive for the encyclopedia. I think you have wonderfully adapted to the restrictions placed on you and I still hold out hope they will be lifted at some point in the future. However, I will offer some advice now. You can accept it or not, that is your choice. You should read over the comments left by Rhododendrites at the ANI and seriously take them to heart. They are extremely sensible and a fair evaluation of the dispute between yourself and Lugnuts. --ARoseWolf 18:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC) --edited18:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let me clarify, it is in regards to this statement,
"When we have another article that explicitly mentions someone, yes, of course a redirect is appropriate, contrary to what JPL argued in that AfD."
Lugnuts may not be correct in their goading, that's a civility issue that can be addressed, but your incorrect comment was based on policy that doesn't exist. My advice is to adjust your responses accordingly and if a proper redirect is proposed then it should be accepted as per policy right now. If you feel policy needs to be changed then propose that at the proper venue. It might not alleviate all the issues but it will give you the sure footing in a discussion turned dispute over policy. --ARoseWolf 18:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let me clarify, it is in regards to this statement,
- John Pack Lambert (this seems so formal but I will respect your wishes), I don't say anything often unless it's to try and help you. Otherwise I stay out of your way and let you do your thing because I believe it is a positive for the encyclopedia. I think you have wonderfully adapted to the restrictions placed on you and I still hold out hope they will be lifted at some point in the future. However, I will offer some advice now. You can accept it or not, that is your choice. You should read over the comments left by Rhododendrites at the ANI and seriously take them to heart. They are extremely sensible and a fair evaluation of the dispute between yourself and Lugnuts. --ARoseWolf 18:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC) --edited18:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now, because Lugnuts falsely posted on his page an accusation that I was tageting him, someone has proposed that I be punished by banning me from nominating any article created by Lugnuts from deletion. Such an action would reward Lugnuts for his falsly accusing me of targeting him. Which is all the more crazy since I had no nominted an article created by Lugnuts for deletion since last week. It seems people who go around making uncivil accusations against others are rewarded. At least in some cases. I hope there is not a will to impose such a truly over brearing sanction, but the fact that someone even proposed it is not at all a good sign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Norman Raeben
Norman Raeben may be notable, but I do not see that justified by the sources we have. The one source we have would at best support a brief mention in the article on Bob Dylan where we might redirect this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Ray Reeve
I really do not get how we justify an article on Ray Reeve. At an absolute minimum we would need to have sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Robley Rex
Robley Rex was kept at a previous AfD, but I really do not see on what ground merely being among the youngest soldiers in a war and then living a long time makes one actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
An attempt at a compromise
Hi John. I can see you are not happy/keen with the idea of I-BANS, which is fair enough. I've posted my comments here at ANI under the sub-heading of "Observations from Lugnuts". Now I'd expect you'll have very different opinions to the first six points I've raised, but what about the suggestion I've mentioned in the final paragraph (starts with the words "Everything needs give and take...") Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- The first thing you need to do is acknowledge that your false attacks on me of hounding articles crfeated by you were false, malicious and rude. One does not compromise by going on the attack, and accusing someone of all sorts of actions that have nothing to do with the scope of the discussion. The scope of the discussion is your rude behavior and false accusations that articles by you are being targeted, when you know full well the goal is to remove sub-stub articles on Olympains that in no way meet inclusion criteria. This is not a compromise proposal, because you give nothing. Now if your proposal was that I could nominate one Olympian article for deletion a week and you would not contribute at all to that discussion, that would be a compromise. What you propose is a less severe limit on my actions and no limit on yours.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- @John Pack Lambert & Lugnuts, what needs to happen here is true compromise. Look, I believe you both are here to contribute. You have a difference in opinion on what should be included or not. It's not like this is the first time anyone has had a dispute with the exact definition of the overly vague inclusion criterium. My point is, if you are both here to make the encyclopedia better then you must make meaningful compromises. No one wins if you both get sanctioned further, even if it stops the disruption the encyclopedia still loses because you both are incredibly intelligent, passionate, talented and thoughtful individual editors. I've come to realize that making the encyclopedia better is not including every piece of human history we can possibly throw in here. Neither is it limiting the growth of the encyclopedia to only information written about extensively. There is a give and take, as pointed out by Lugnuts, and the only way we get there is by legitimately coming together, ratcheting down the rhetoric, apologizing for any offense, listening to each other without immediately dismissing the others position and actively seeking to understand other perspectives than your own and respect them. Even if we can not find a way to agree we must accept the good faith legitimate position of others. And you are both legitimate and your position is legitimate. As Star Mississippi said, you both feel you are editing in good faith and honestly I believe you both are. Assuming bad faith in the other person here only serves to weaken the view the community has in your own position. My advice is to take the focus off each other, no matter what has been said in the past either recent or long past, and focus on how you both can improve listening to other positions in a discussion and incorporating it with your own into a solution. Neither of you are going to get everything you want. Make it work or I'm afraid the only destination you both will be headed for is further sanctions. Just my observation but I think the community has had just about enough of all of this from both of you. I haven't commented at ANI because I hope you both can find a way to fix this. Neither of you are a lost cause. I believe you can work together but you have to be willing to. --ARoseWolf 14:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Filippo Sgarlata
- On the Olympic Art competitors, my review of Category:1901 births just came across Filippo Sgarlata. He was a sculptor who was in the 1948 Olympic Arts competition. That is all our article says. The article was created by Lugnuts. the one source listed, Olympedia, has 3 paragraphs on Sgarlata. From the Olympedia article we learn that Sgarlata lived in the US from 1926-1932. We learn that he was a professor of sculpting in both Palermo and San Luca. He crfeated a gate for a notable building in 1961, and created some works that somehow were deemed to be "in line with fascists ideology". Is this one source enough to have this article survive? Porbably not? Was Sgarlata a notable sculptor? I am not sure, but really wish there was a way to get people to look into it more. I know there is a well developed set of notability criteria for artists, but I am less than sure what it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Artur Amon
Artur Amon was a person on an Olympic basketball team. I cannot remember if he played in one game or none, but it was not significant. Both sources are to sports refernece.com, which has been held to be a database that inclusion of does not show notability. I maybe should have been more clear about the matter when I redirected the article. Now I will have to wait at least until tomorrow and realistically until Monday, unless someone else wants to put this one up for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
1900 births
Category:1900 births currently has 6,096 articles. I am about to review it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Olympics overwhelm us
There is a truly huge number of sub-stub articles on Olympians. So much so that you could read the whole set of articles on teams of 10 or more and come away not knowing anything except that those 10 people played in that sport at that Olympics. This is not at all a useful set of information to gain, and leaves no justification for having the articles. There is very little progress being made to change this. In some ways the ability of progress seems unlikely because of pre-1970 amateur rules, and other factors that mean that a good number of people involved in the Olympics before 1970 were not public individuals at all. We do face similar problems with articles on Japanese photographers which often say only "Michiko Kasumi (1905-1988) was a Japanese photographer." Often with just 1 source. I do not know enough Japanese to even know where to start. We have some other problem areas. A good number of our articles on members of state legislatures say very little, and some are several years out of date. Making it unclear if the person has served at all since about 2014. I have to admit that I sometimes wonder if it really makes sense to say every single member of a first level sub-national in a federal system legislature is notable. In some ways that presumption has lead to people turning out huge number of short and not very informative articles. It means that articles on even those who were among the top leaders of a legislative body do not say much. I have been guilty at times of turning out probably too many such articles too quickly. That was in part a response to the at least at one time oddity where in some US states we had articles on all current members of one party in the legislature but very few on members of the other main political party in that state's legislature. In a few cases (cough, New Hampshire, cough) we have I doubt ever even come close to having articles on all current members of state legislatures. The thing is that almost all these people will have been covered in published literature. It might take effort to get good sourcing on some though, but it does exist. Some states, like Wisconsin, have a much further back close to full number of articles on legislators. On the other hand articles on Wisconsin legislators are often very anemic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Joe Appleton
We do not seem to even know which island in the West Indies Appleton was from. If somone can find more sources on Appleton that would greatly improve the article.
- Sorry I did not link to Joe Appleton. He spent most of his career in Britain. He was a jazz musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- interesting, sounds like my cousin I never knew but heard about, my dad have some old records of his, didn't think he was that notable to have a wiki article. Govvy (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article is only sourced to All Music. I am less than sure he meets the notability guidelines for a musician. I have not tried finding more sources, and I have to admit I understand music guidelines less well than academic, politician or sports guidelines, so I am not sure if he is notable or not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- interesting, sounds like my cousin I never knew but heard about, my dad have some old records of his, didn't think he was that notable to have a wiki article. Govvy (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Allen Boretz
Allen Boretz has had a tag saying it is unsourced for just about a month shy of 10 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Thomas Forbes
Thomas Forbes is an article that has been posted as having no sources since 2008. I looked through the links to find sources, and nothing was looking to be about him. The name is common enough that it might take a really deep dive through sources to be sure. There seems to be a contemporary businessman with this name, and there are lots of other people with it. My initial search brough up nothing, and we need sources to verify. Not all poets are notable just because they published, but some people have claimed I have over done Proposed deletion nominations, so I am hoping this notice might get some interest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Millard E. Gladfelter
Millard E. Gladfelter was president of Temple University. This almost certainly passes the notability guidelines for academics, since I am 98% sure this is a university at a level that being head of it is enough to show notability. We only have one sentance on him though. We clearly need more content on him. There are links to some sources that almost certainly say more about Gladfelter than what our article says. One can probably also find additional sources that could help expand the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did add one more source, and a paragraph or so more information. I am sure we should say more on Gladfelter. Here [3] are the google book results. Some of those are primary sources, and so of little help. I can also not access the New york Times obiturary. I am sure the Philadephia papers ran obituaries as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Enrico Garbuglia
Enrico Garbuglia does not have any sources. He is a late surviving war veteran, and that is all. I have been told that this is something some thing is a sign of notability, so I guess if cannot be nominated through Proposed Deletion. I may try and nominate this article for deletion tomorrow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Gunnar Emil Garfors
Gunnar Emil Garfors is an article that has been uncided since at least 2009.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Elsie Gerlach
If Elsie Gerlach was actually "nationally know and respected for her contributions to pediatric dentistry" she is notable. However the fact that the one source is a publication of her employer does not bode well. We need indepdent, reliable, secondary sources to justify an article. If what the article is true those should be findable, but we need them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- This link [4] suggests there may be more sources out there. I am not seeing how exactly to get to it. I have to admit I do not think I have ever tried to dig up adequate sourcing on a dentist before.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnpacklambert With apologies if these were reminders for yourself rather than for other people to chime in: I was intrigued by Elsie Gerlach and have done some searching for possible reliable sources. I am a new Wikipedian and still learning about appropriate sources, so these may not be suitable. If they seem to be, I would be happy to try adding these to the article when I have a little more creative power, but in the meantime for your reference:
- Her obituary, published in the Chicago Tribune
- University of Illinois Board of Trustees minutes, listing Elsie as Superindentant of Children's Clinic - this seems like something we could dig into further and perhaps get more info
- A fund in her name (the Gerlach-Barber Recognition Fund) at University of Illinois
- StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Jules Goldstone
Jules Goldstone was an attorney who worked as Elizabeth Taylor's agent. He gets some brief mention in realtion to her. I have to admit I do not think it adds up to enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Eduardo González Lanuza
Eduardo González Lanuza is a poet for whom we have no sources. There is one source on the Spanish article on him, but one sources is not enough to pass GNG. While poets are often notable, we need sources to show this, which I do not at present see.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Aubrey Otis Hampton
Aubrey Otis Hampton may well be a notable medical doctor. I am thinking it looks like he was. However, the sourcing we currently have on the article just does not to me seem that it quite passes the reliable source test, and even if it does one source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was able to find and add one source that went beyond what we had. However I strongly suspect there is more out there if someone looks hard enough. Finding information on past medical practioners is not my expertise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Taiwanese cheerleaders
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220620190212im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
A tag has been placed on Category:Taiwanese cheerleaders indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Just a reminder
Despite ANI and some of the loudest voices (which are a minority), your work here is still appreciated. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do not believe it since so many people are supporting outright banning me from participating in AfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do not believe my work is appreciated at all. I do not believe it at all. I thought I was working collaboratively with some people to develop a plan to advance some goals, but they are willing to support a proposal that would block me from contributing towards those goals at all. If I say anything more, if I say anything in my defence, or against the bad behavior of others, it is counted against me and people come up with more ways to punish me. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are aspects of your work at AfD that are appreciated, and some that are extremely unpopular. I'm not sure you're interested in hearing my opinion on how you could continue your work and have it appreciated rather than contested, but I'll give it a shot. If you choose to follow this advice, I guarantee your work will be much more happily received!
- First, I personally find that you've been doing better with your nominations very recently, after a spate in which it appeared to me you were not doing an adequate BEFORE. Keep up the thorough before! Another issue is that you frequently vote in AfDs with rather shallow arguments, and then tend to stick by your delete vote no matter what, even if the article has been clearly improved. It's not supposed to be about WP:WINNING. I personally generally do my own complete BEFORE, including searching newspaper archives, before placing a vote. This takes time, but it ensures that I mostly get it right. It's better to be right than fast. It often appears you are in such a hurry to get your !d votes out there that you don't take time to read the article, look for sources, and develop an informed rationale. Evidence of that can be found in the atrocious spelling and occasional bad grammar in your posts. Take the time to do it right, and you will get respect and appreciation. One final comment: it's normal to be wrong from time to time. Admit your mistakes. Follow up. Don't rush.
- I hope you find this helpful. Jacona (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- While there is a proposal with almost no opposition to ban me from participating in AfD at all I do not really find your comments very encoraging. Especially since this proposal comes after my multiple attempts yesterday to began expanding and better sourcing articles. It feels like when I start to try to be more cooperative, people just attack me more. This is especially true, because people often try to use any AfD I start that does not result in a delete as a reason to go on a crusade against me. I do appreciate your comments, but they do not give me much hope with the attempt to stop all my participating in AfD havign such broad support.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Mr. Lambert, thanks for listening. Do not expect a few minutes of behavioral change to greatly affect the attitudes and perceptions who have been watching the previous behavior for many years. Take it one day at a time, and if you work according to the advice I've given you, people will come around. You have to do it right, not fast. You must stick with it, and you can't expect everyone to accept that you've changed your approach all at once. It takes time, and care. Good luck! Jacona (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- While there is a proposal with almost no opposition to ban me from participating in AfD at all I do not really find your comments very encoraging. Especially since this proposal comes after my multiple attempts yesterday to began expanding and better sourcing articles. It feels like when I start to try to be more cooperative, people just attack me more. This is especially true, because people often try to use any AfD I start that does not result in a delete as a reason to go on a crusade against me. I do appreciate your comments, but they do not give me much hope with the attempt to stop all my participating in AfD havign such broad support.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I tried to take Jacona's comments into account in my editing on the deletion discussion on Moulton-Udell High School.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Arbcom case request
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Johnpacklambert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, Fram (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
ANI
The ANI linked to above now has a proposal to ban me from participanting in AfD for at least a year. This despite the fact my reaction to it so far has been to no longer so vocally oppose redirects, and also despite my decision to avoid going to Proposed Deletion so soon and balancing out articles. It seems that when a milder solution (a two way interaction ban with Lugnuts) was not making headway, people went for the total and complete ban of all participation in the AfD process. I am not sure how this is at all a defendable reaction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- John, FWIW, this is a rare case of me agreeing with you 100%. For the chance of a possible resolution that would be the least-worst (but not ideal) outcome for both of us, would you be willing to back the two-way IBAN? If so, I'm happy to add a joint statement at the bottom of the ANI thread. It might not do any good, but I don't see the harm in adding it. If, of course, you would want that. I don't have an issue if you don't want to support the IBAN either. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, the ban is unreasonable and is not tailored to addressing the actual problem at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough - thanks for replying. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, the ban is unreasonable and is not tailored to addressing the actual problem at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Willem Huender
Willem Huender was the colonial governor of Surinam. That postion alone means we will keep the article if we can verrify he existed, which the one source does. I strongly suspect any 20th-century governor of Surinam (and probably even earlier) there are more sources on. Some may be in Dutch, so harder for English speakers to find, but I suspect there are more sources in English as well. I hope someone finds them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
1900 births
I am actually surprised there are not more people in Category:1900 births that we only know they were born about 1900. Although since I do not look deep at sources in all cases, some of the no date entried might really be that. However most people seem to actually have been born that year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now that I have completed reviewing this category is has 5,998 entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Common name
I just came across an article that the name of the article included William (Bill) etc. I am pretty sure common name means we should either use Bill if that is what he was normally called, or William if that is what most sources call him. The common example is the article is Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton. In this particular case I did not delve into the sourcing, and there may be others, but we really for the common name need to figure which one is the one he was most often called, or is most often called in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Virginia Lathrop
Virginia Lathrop is an article sourced only to a finding aide connected to her papers. This does not seem to really fit the rublic of indepdent, reliable 3rd party secondary source. It also is one, and GNG asks for multiple. There may be sources on her beyond this. This problem of little sourcing seems to have existed for at least 12 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Last surviving veteran cruft
Eino Lehtinen is one of several articles we have on people who got some human interest coverage at about age 105 or so. I am not really seeing that any of these articles are justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Frans Kuijper
Frans Kuijper is an article sourced to two sports tables. It lacks any source that has any prose about Mr. Kuijper. I also was unable to find any additional sources about this individual after doing searches in google, google books and google news archive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Pierre Coquelin de Lisle
Pierre Coquelin de Lisle seems to me an example of why the presumption that all Olympic medalists are notable does not stand up to reasonable tests. There are no sources on this article that have any prose about him. Yes there are some Olympic medalists who became very notable largely because of it, but that does not prove that all medalists in all sports are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- For a longtime Wiki editor, you sure are clueless about finding sources. It's kinda obvious that there's a picture in this article. The picture's page gives a source, a French sports paper.why wouldn't that count as a source? Your buddy, Curly. 166.149.176.61 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- A captioned photograph of someone from a newspaper is not the type of source that passes GNG. Not everyone who has been pictured with a photo in a newspaper with the caption saying who they are is notable for just being in a photo with a cpation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be some SIGCOV of him in French papers (via RetroNews), e.g. [5]. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I added your note to the talk page on Lisle.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
David Farrow Maxwell
David Farrow Maxwell may well have been notable, but we really need more substance and probably a few more sources to show this. The fact we lack articles on either his predecessor or successor at the American Bar Association either shows its heads are not notable, that people need to do a lot more research in this field, or quite possibly both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was able to find coverage here (Philly Inquirer obit), here (detailed Counrier-Journal article), here (NYT obit), and here (detailed NYT article) on Maxwell. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Gaganvihari Lallubhai Mehta
Gaganvihari Lallubhai Mehta is an article sourced on to a book written by his daughter. Generally such a source would not be considered to meet GNG. It might if its editing was done by reliable editors. There may also be other sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
José Luis Romo Martín
José Luis Romo Martín may hold the record for most misplaced birth year category. I found this artilce in Category:1900 births, he was actually born in 1954.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Isaac Schour
Isaac Schour may well be notable, but we need something as a source beyond a work covering him created by his employer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was able to find an obit in the Chicago Tribune. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Czechoslovak dramatists and playwrights
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220620190212im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Ambox_warning_pn.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png)
A tag has been placed on Category:Czechoslovak dramatists and playwrights indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Irving Weber
Irving Weber may be notable. However at present we lack any secondary sourcing on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- After his death the Iowa City Press-Citizen ran a full page-length article on him. There's also coverage here, here, and here (plus there's lots of other articles on Newspapers.com, but I don't have time to go through them). An article in 2000 states he was named Iowa City's "Person of the Century" [6]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Julian Stanley Wise
I do not see how the sourcing we have justifies an article on Julian Stanley Wise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- My search was able to find [7] [8] [9] and [10] as well as [11] which lists three offline biographical sketches of Wise. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
1899 births
Category:1899 births has 5,773 entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- After reviewing this category it now has 5,635 entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
1899 misplaced
It seems a lot of the articles which I am finding in Category:1899 births really belong in Category:1889 births.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Louise Kugler
Louise Kugler I found in Category:1899 births. She was actually born in 1811. This is a record of misplacement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people on postage stamps
Sorry I missed it, I was about to XfD this. If you DELREV it or nominate it again, do ping me. This is such a failure. At least rename it (I'll do so...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am probably not going to renominate it, but I will support it if you renominate it. Probably at this point it is best to wait and let some of the other discussions run their courses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
1898 births
As I am about to review Category:1898 births it has 5,943 entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Sadie T.M. Alexander
Hello, John Pack Lambert. I note that you changed the description I had edited into the first sentence of the article on Sadie Tanner Mosell Alexander from "pioneering Black professional" to "pioneering African-American professional," but you did not provide any rationale or justification for making this change. The term "African-American" appears in the next sentence, so your edit makes the writing more clumsy. Somewhat to my surprise, I find nothing in WP:MOS suggesting a standard way to refer to the racial identity of an American of African descent, although it is obviously a question that would come up often, so I infer that any non-offensive term should be acceptable. Rather than appear to be edit-warring by changing it back, I thought I would give you a chance to explain first. I await your response. PDGPA (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, this is not a good change. Consistentcy suggests we should use the same term as much as possible. Wikipedia categorizes by ethnicity, not race. We should use "African-American", especailly when referring in ways that can be seen as meaning ethnicity. In the long run it is also way better to use terms that do not use color to refer to people and their ethnicities. I think this is a major improvement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Treating different terms as if they mean the same thing, and using them interchangeably to make an article more interesting is not a good idea. One should not change from using "African-American' to using a different term, unless one intends to indcate a different group or different scope with the other term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- As best I can tell, you do not disagree with me that there is no uniform policy on this (rather common) issue in the Manual of Style. As I said, I looked and could not find one, and you do not cite any. You say, "Wikipedia categorizes by ethnicity, not race," but offer no supporting authority for that claim. You say this or that is "not a good idea" or "not a good change." That sounds like your personal opinion, which is fine, but not entitled to more weight than mine. My understanding of contemporary American usage is that in this context "Black" and "African-American" do, in fact, mean the same thing and would not be understood by most thougtful readers as suggesting, on the one hand, a literal color (Black people come in all skin tones, after all) or a literal geographic ancestry (we do not refer to caucasian immigrants from Rhodesia or South Africa, nor Arab immigrants from Morocco or Egypt, as "African-American," in other words). In the context at issue -- where the identification of the subject by race is exactly the point (first Black American to earn a Ph.D. in economics; first Black woman to practice law in Pennsylvania, etc.) -- the noble idea that "in the long run it is better to use terms that do not use color to refer to people and their ethnicities" seems to me to miss the mark by a wide margin. So I will take this to the Sadie T.M. Alexander talk page and seek consensus there. Thanks for responding. Your change lacked an edit summary, so I really did not know your rationale. PDGPA (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, Afircan-American means someone who is by nationality connected to the US. "black" can refer to people in any country and is not limited to people connected to the US. In this context, there could have been a black Canadian, national of some country in Africa, Black British, Afro-Brazilian or any number of other possible people who were not Americans hold a faculty position or graduate. Black and African-American do not mean the same thing, and people need to stop talking as if they do. I have seen to many cases where someone was refered to as the "first black X", when they were really the "first Afircan-American X" and there had been other Black, non-American people do X. The terms do not mean the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- As best I can tell, you do not disagree with me that there is no uniform policy on this (rather common) issue in the Manual of Style. As I said, I looked and could not find one, and you do not cite any. You say, "Wikipedia categorizes by ethnicity, not race," but offer no supporting authority for that claim. You say this or that is "not a good idea" or "not a good change." That sounds like your personal opinion, which is fine, but not entitled to more weight than mine. My understanding of contemporary American usage is that in this context "Black" and "African-American" do, in fact, mean the same thing and would not be understood by most thougtful readers as suggesting, on the one hand, a literal color (Black people come in all skin tones, after all) or a literal geographic ancestry (we do not refer to caucasian immigrants from Rhodesia or South Africa, nor Arab immigrants from Morocco or Egypt, as "African-American," in other words). In the context at issue -- where the identification of the subject by race is exactly the point (first Black American to earn a Ph.D. in economics; first Black woman to practice law in Pennsylvania, etc.) -- the noble idea that "in the long run it is better to use terms that do not use color to refer to people and their ethnicities" seems to me to miss the mark by a wide margin. So I will take this to the Sadie T.M. Alexander talk page and seek consensus there. Thanks for responding. Your change lacked an edit summary, so I really did not know your rationale. PDGPA (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia should use emigration categories and place names that reflect the reality at the time of an event
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to right great wrongs. It should use place names, and emigration categories that reflect the reality at the time of events. We should also place people in occupation and related categories that intersect with nationality based on the actual country they were nationals of. We seem to under use Soviet, Yugoslav and Czechoslovak categories in this regard. There are probably others. The determination of what polity someone was a national of may not be easy. However we need to avoid presentism in this regard.
The most glaring case of this is Gujarat and Maharashtra are Indian states that were created in 1960. We have too many articles that invoke these state names foe events that happened in Bombay State or Bombay Presidency. There are other issues.
The issue here is complex. I would say we should use current Romanization for Chinese places all the way back, since the change in Romanization does not reflect any change in how the Chinese themselves referred to the place. Livorno should be called such even at times when English speakers called it Leghorn, except in actual quotes.
There are some case by case matters that are going to be tricky. When Constantinople becomes Istabul seems to be an issue with no easy answer. I had a history professor that mocked 19th-century publications for calling it Constantinople when the Turks cane to power in 1453, but it seems that it is not clear that the Turks renamed it in that year. The 1922/1923 name change may be too late though.
Siam becomes Thailand in a clear year. The Iran/Persia usage seems a bit more complex though. Burma as Myanmar seems another that was not a quick change. Rhodesia to Zimbabwe has a clear year.
For categorization there is another question. Some name changes do not reflect a polity change. I do not see a good reason to have Category:Siamese writers to group those from before the name change. In the case of Writers from the Ottoman Empire as opposed to Writers from Turkey we have a clear change of size, government, and massive population exchanges that coincide with the change in name. Writers might be a poor choice, because it us a profession where language used is defining. We limit categorization by that because so many Turkish writers write in Turkish, French writers write in French and German writers write in German among many other categories that if we categorized every writer by language some of these categories would be near mirrors of the nationality categories.
An even trickier issue is ethnic categories that use the same name as nationality categories. So what of a Greek medical doctor who lived all his life in the Ottoman Empire or an Armenian engineer who never left Lebanon? Some of the solutions here may require not always using the common name to avoid total confusion. Although maybe we at some point accept categories with illogical scope.
Some of the answers depend on how bad people see the various results of category structure. Which is the bigger problem. Categories so large that you can never sort through them? Categories so small that they do not group anything? Or articles in too many categories? I know we have never even faced up to the questions, in part because there are no easy answers.
There are in part no easy answers because scope is so hard to figure out. Some of these group names are not fixed but contested.
I am trying to speak in broad generalities, but we will always end up with some fuzzy edges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Douglass Sullivan-Gonzalez
![Notice](https://web.archive.org/web/20220620190212im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Douglass Sullivan-Gonzalez has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Simply non-notable , fails WP:GNG. Only source cited is a primary source.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ HAL333 17:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)