Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriella Quevedo


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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Gabriella Quevedo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BIO. Sources are links to videos or performances or broken links. edit: I would just like to clarify further. I looked through the citations and there are about two or three acceptable ones; most are merely performance videos, performance schedules, event listings, YouTube videos, or just completely irrelevant.  Nik ol ai h ☎️📖 04:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I won’t pretend to understand Swedish better than I do, but at this time I don’t see notability. Trillfendi (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I disagree with the sweeping description of the sources as either video performances or broken links. While some sources are weak, that's not true for all of them. There were a couple of broken links among the ones I checked out – I rewrote those references pointing to the paper editions instead, using Mediearkivet (Retriever) which collects Swedish newspaper articles. Others are paywalled, but just like we can reference books, we can reference material that's not freely accessible, thus widening access to that content. /Julle (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - After improvements by Julle. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The references may need an overhaul, but I disagree with the complaint about video links. One Youtube video was pointed to via an external link. The article is about a musician and I believe giving an example of a performance is more relevant than including a picture of the subject. One editor later incorporated that link into the reference list. Many sources are from Swedish daily newspapers. When I wrote the original Swedish article I thought those references would be more than enough. Quite many Wikipedia articles with almost no sources remain up year after year so I am quite surprised that this article is proposed for deletion. I would like to see a clarification of which "about two or three" references are considered acceptable by the proposer, and which are not, are there Swedish newspapers that publish irrelevant articles? Just for information, Swedish is my native language. Unoholmer (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I do agree that many articles have almost no sources remain up for a long time and I think that is unacceptable. I won't go through all the sources but so many of them are just links to concerts, performances, videos, none of which are acceptable as references. As I said, a few are fine. Besides the references, she fails WP:BIO which is the primary concern.  Nik ol ai h ☎️📖 22:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nikolaih I see far more than two or three acceptable sources, so it's difficult to understand more exactly which ones you're referring to. For example, there are a number of Swedish newspaper articles that are paywalled or not in the online edition (but accessible through Mediearkivet). Do you count these? /Julle (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, those that I don't have access to I consider are fine. However, very few of the sources actually support her notability. (Having the sources are okay but they do not help an argument for WP:BIO). Just looking through the first couple dozen, I know for sure that sources 2,5,6,9,10,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,21,22,... do not support notability. Overall I don't believe this article is yet ready to be included.  Nik ol ai h ☎️📖 05:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as Swedish newspapers already in the article to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO which is fundamentally determined by sourcing, so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Gabriella Quevedo a famous person worthy of an encyclopedia entry? Sorry I don't know how to vote for or against.


 * 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.