Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Spain

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Spain. 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:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Gpedia: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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Spain|~~~~}} 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Spain.
Further information
For further information see Gpedia'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 Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
HILLBLU lente.png
Scan for Spain related AfDs


Spain

2021-2022

2021-2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Not a notable football season. The club, FC Británico de Madrid, plays in Primera Regional. Mvqr (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

2000–01 UE Lleida season

2000–01 UE Lleida season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

No indication of the significant coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Sakiv (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sakiv (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, I suspect that a WP:BEFORE would have yielded lots. The language in question would be Catalan or Spanish. UE Lleida played in a pro league and the season was noteworthy in that they went from almost-promotion to La Liga, to relegation in 2000–01. The chance of this season not being written about, I would rate around 1%. Is the nominator confusing with the 2001–02 UE Lleida season when Lleida played on the third tier? Geschichte (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    Comment No, I don't confuse this article with the 2001–02 article. In short, this article is in a very poor state. Your first argument is inaccurate. The team never got close to promotion.--Sakiv (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
To be fair I think that is referring to the quick change from 1999–2000 Segunda División which was very close to promotion, while 2000–01 Segunda División was a total collapse and relegation at the bottom of the table. Crowsus (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, only 3 points from promotion in June 2000, then relegated a year later. Geschichte (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • delete - yes this was from when the club was in a fully-pro league, so should meet NSEASONS, but where are the sources? GiantSnowman 20:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
And where are the links? Readers shouldn't really need to go to a template (which isn't visible on all mobile views) to get something as basic as the league division article for that season - and I've just seen that only got added today. It can be rescued with sources IMO but will any effort be made in that regard, as none was made in its first decade+ of existence? Crowsus (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: While I'm not well versed in finding WP:SIGCOV for seasons, per nom this subject appears to be lacking. For @Geschichte:'s comment and in light of WP:GF, I think we can presume nom completed a WP:BEFORE and ultimately didn't find any relevant material, which was the same result I had. For @Sakiv:'s response as well as a later comment by @Crowsus:, the current state of the article doesn't matter per WP:PERFECTION as it can always improve over time. The major issue for me, as nom originally put and echoed by @GiantSnowman: is that the article currently fails GNG since no one can find sources even though there are assumptions they should exist. Until they're found, if they're ever found, I must lean delete. GauchoDude (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Diego Puyo

Diego Puyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this WP:BLP, with WP:ROUTINE coverage apparently limited to a single passing mention in a Spanish newspaper. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unsourced BLP. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 23:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - I was unable to find any substantial coverage (or really anything at all apart from database entries). If there are any reliable sources discussing him, they are likely in Spanish though it doesn't appear Spanish Gpedia has an article on him. My search was hindered by the current Colombian Energy Minister sharing his name. A7V2 (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete – No coverage and no claim to significance. Probably could have been handled with a BLP PROD since it seems very unlikely any sources will be found. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per nom... appears to fail WP:NMOTORSPORT Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Insignificant coverage and unreliable sources Juggyevil (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Grenada–Spain relations

Grenada–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:GNG. There isn't much to these relations: no embassies, no state visits. The agreements are minor such as for "visas for holders of diplomatic passport". LibStar (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sonia Baby

Sonia Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails GNG and ENT. Porn performer who would barely have passed PORNBIO Spartaz Humbug! 15:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete/Comment Fails WP:GNG What is the obsession here with creating pages for pornographic actors/actresses MaskedSinger (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The standards were abysmally low in Gpedia’s ye bad olde days. You got a single nomination for best boobs at some purely promotional award show? YOU DESERVE AN ARTICLE! Dronebogus (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Comes up short on WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. The article stub has no reliable sources, but an independent search yields some coverage in Spanish media. Minor celebrity who appeared in a Big Brother-type reality show. Non-zero but still not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Salma de Nora

Salma de Nora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails GNG & ENT. Might have passed PORNBiO but now awards no longer count this no longer meets inclusion standards. Spartaz Humbug! 15:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Fabio Blanco

Fabio Blanco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. BRDude70 (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete No evidence has been presented to support the assertion that this meets GNG. The first three sources in the article are databases (not SIGCOV), and judging from what can be gleaned from the rest of the article's content, they don't appear to be more than routine, run-of-the-mill sports coverage. Playing for a reserve team isn't a particularly good reason to ignore this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Notadogbutafish. Passes WP:GNG, Many sources available. VincentGod11 (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    If it meets GNG, then please provide WP:THREE sources to support this. Unsupported assertions are entirely unconvincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    Here they are; https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/football/barca-b/news/2442232/agreement-to-sign-fabio-blanco
    https://www.bundesliga.com/en/bundesliga/news/who-is-fabio-blanco-frankfurt-sign-real-madrid-barcelona-target-valencia-15901
    https://www.sport.es/es/noticias/futbol-base/peligra-debut-fabio-blanco-barca-13122461
    These meet WP:RS & WP:SIGCOV. Notadogbutafish (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    The first is not an independent source (its literally from the club that signed him)... The Bundesliga piece seems like routine transfer coverage. Beyond some stats and some superlatives ("youngest X", "sixth Spaniard", ...), the only coverage of the player himself (that does not come from his own or the managers' mouths) is the one paragraph on playing style. The sport.es piece contains very little about the footballer himself, much of the coverage isn't even about him. What is sums up to one and a half paragraphs (translation via Google, nevermind the grammar): Fabio Blanco is ready to add his first minutes with Barça B , he has been training for days under the orders of Sergi Barjuan, but an essential procedure is missing to be able to register the winger. and The first signing of the winter market comes, as is known, from Eintracht Frankfurt , so this requirement is necessary. Once the transfer is available, all that remains is to apply for the federative license, but time is short and for Sergi it is a necessity, because despite the fact that there are several wingers in the squad, Fabio would have many numbers to play, initially starting from the bench, but it would not be completely ruled out that he entered the starting eleven.. This is not really SIGCOV of the footballer either. This might be a case of TOOSOON. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    Can you please read this. The page then is similar to this now. Here are some other links from independent sources; https://thenewspocket.com/bayern-munich-fabio-blanco/
    https://www.managingmadrid.com/2021/3/30/22357451/real-madrid-and-barcelona-eager-to-sign-valencia-starlet
    https://www.kicker.de/frankfurt-holt-top-talent-aus-valencia-fabio-blanco-gomez-kommt-805079/artikel Notadogbutafish (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    There is a significant difference between the player actually being in the top, senior level team and playing for a reserve team. As for the sources you provide, I'm dubious about their reliability, but the first one only contains speculation and trivial factoids (he played 3 games for the U19 team) and not much else; no. 2 is plainly written by fans and not a reliable source (and "transfer news and rumours" is not a good sign this is anything but routine speculation). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    No, when those discussions were made, he never featured in any 'top, senior level team' game. He has only featured in league games recently and still plays the Champions League of the reserve team. If you're familiar with pages for youth prospects in football, you'd find out that you can only find links like these. Some of them are; Luqman Hakim Shamsudin, and Xavi Simons. You can look at the version of the pages before they featured in a first team match. Notadogbutafish (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'm still inclined to agree with @RandomCanadian:, as the only one arguing so much against it is the article's creator. For me, it's a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. The content may be moved to a draft page, and only moved to an article space when the player makes his professional debut. BRDude70 (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    No surprises as the only person who agrees with him is the editor who nominated the page for deletion. Passing WP:NFOOTY is not the only criteria that should be considered here as the subject clearly passes WP:GNG. Notadogbutafish (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

King's Family of Churches

King's Family of Churches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This denomination clearly fails WP:NCHURCH, as was already noted back in 2008: no reliable secondary source discusses this denomination (if there ever was a mention it would probably simply be a WP:TRIVIALMENTION).
The previous AfD treated this denomination as a non-commercial organisation, but it is a religious organisation (WP:NCHURCH). 13 years after this AfD, the article still has no reliable source to support the notability of this organisation.
No mention of this denomination on Google books, no mention on Google Scholar, no mention in the 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions. The name "Evangelical Episcopal Church" gives many results on Google books and Google Scholar which correspond to various organisations; none of those matches the one this WP article is about (Google books, Google Scholar).
I recommend deletion for serious lack of WP:notability. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • delete non-notable short-lived religious group. I failed to find any independent non-promotional in-depth coverage. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Possible keep -- This appears to be in the nature of a denomination. If it really had 967 congregations and 40,000 members, it was notable; and notability is not temporary. It would be helpful, if it the article had explained what happened to such a large number of congregations. The whole thing seems very odd. Congregations do not suddenly disappeear: it is more likely that the movement splintered and the others went in a different direction. However a denomination in Spain that used the (Anglican) book of common prayer sounds odd. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Possible keep -Odd, apparently it had 900 congregations, then 600, in various countries and on various continents. Existed for about 20 years, then completely dissapeared. It was a combination of Celtic and anglican or something? Its very unusual, almost like a hoax article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Deathlibrarian: now that you say it, the user who created the page had put as the image of an alleged church (congregation) of this denomination, an image which seem to be from an unrelated Lutheran church, as @Explicit: found out; see c:User talk:Explicit#Deletion of File:Localcongregation.jpg. @Peterkingiron: any thought? Veverve (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
That pic was one of the main things that was convincing me this was legit! It's all rather dubious now.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment (voted above) -- If true, the first two sentences of my vote above would be right.
Deeper in Christ Ministries appears to be a genuine church in Georgia (probably one congregation). Joseph Rossello apparently exists, leading a church in Exmouth, England and claims there were 1200 congregations. Free Church of England names him as bishop of their South America diocese. I thus wonder it this is not a gargled version of that. If so, it should be redirected there. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I've done a bit of searching here, there is definitely a group of similiar churches that are called Kings Church that seem to be connected in some way, in The UK, Australia, the US and possibly other places - so this article could refer to them - for instance, here and here and here and here - It looks to me these are all connected, as they seem to use similiar branding and seem to be all pentecostal/born again type churches, modern ministry type churches. I noticed some of them refer to a similar service called "alpha". There's little overall information on the overall concept or connection, but there's certainly lots of these "kings Church" similiar churches. So if this is the case, and this is referring to them, then this would appear to be legit. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Deathlibrarian: the fact one cannot find any secondary source centered on this denomination and has to resort on trying to find parishes with a name which sounds similar (and may simply be a reference to Christ the King) to find information, means the subject does not meet the WP:NCHURCH and WP:GNG and therefore should be deleted. All which has been found so far are riddles which are primary sources which on top of not saying anything about this denomination cannot be taken as proofs of GNG. Veverve (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
On the one hand you are right, there is little secondary information here. But I would refute that these parishes just coincidentally have the same name (They are all called "Kings Church - Placename"), that would appear to be too much of a coincidence. They are also all coincidentally similiar types of evangelical churches.They would appear to be connected (at least loosely, or influenced each other), and as there seems to be a sizeable body of them, or were at some point, that would meet both WP:NCHURCH and WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Deathlibrarian: WP:GNG states its criteria are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". None of those criteria are present here. One cannot operate by instinct and clues to write a WP article or to decide on the WP:NOTABILITY of a WP article; Gpedia is an encyclopedia and not the place for WP:OR. A denomination does not have the right to have its WP article, or to have an unreasonably large benefit of the doubt, on the ground that it claims itself to have such and such many parishes. Veverve (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
That is correct, there isn't good enough secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG alone. However you seem to be missing my point - the article (and the information here posted by Peterkingiron) claims to have many parishes, and internet searches seems to reveal that this is in fact the case. As for OR, its perfectly normal for editors to do research to ascertain if the content of an article is legitimate - that's what we do. I thought this may be a hoax article, but that doesn't appear to be the case.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Deathlibrarian: This information is from a personnal WP:BLOG written by the blog owner about his own life (and it is possibly a WP:PASSINGMENTION). This blog is not a WP:RS, even less when it has to support the claim an obscure denomination existed and had more than a thousand parishes over multiple countries without anybody noticing it. We already have primary sources in the WP article claiming the churches had hundreds of parishes, it is nothing new. Veverve (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree its a blog and not WP:RS and we wouldn't base the article on it, my point is, like Peterkingiron who pointed it out intitally I guess, it's part of the puzzle we are looking at to work out what is going on with this article. I'm not overly connected to this article, I'm mainly just curious as to what its about, and as mentioned, I suspect the "family" of various "Kings Churches" I linked to are what it is referring to. I'll also point out that this article was put up for AFD in the past and was kept, this being the 2nd nomination of course. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has anyone found verifiable evidence for the claims of significance in the article? If not, deletion appears appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete, not a notable church or congregation or organization. I cannot find any independent sources that even mention King's Family of Churches. The sources in the article consist of primary refs, a ref that talks about the New Beginning Church of Benissa and doesn't support any of the content in the article, and two refs to doctrinal statements that don't mention the article subject either. Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Leonese Language Day

Leonese Language Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Too complicated for PROD. While I found a proclamation, and a blog referenced in this book, I am unable to find coverage of this day beyond Wiki mirrors and don't think it garnered any significance. It's unclear whether it even still exists. I was going to redirect it to Leonese dialect, however it's not mentioned there and there's nothing to indicate it warrants a merger/mention. Star Mississippi 18:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Enrique Dans

Enrique Dans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Would have prodded, but already been deleted once through AfD. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 01:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 04:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Deletion_sorting%2FSpain">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Spain&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>