Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marius Berenis

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. While the delete arguments had a numerical majority, many of the delete arguments were not policy-based or were even contrary to policy. The "keep" arguments demonstrated the crucial factor, the availability of sufficient reference material, and the suitability of such references was not disputed or even questioned. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Berenis

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

No indication of notability, using Wikipedia as a reference. Laber□^T 17:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete fails WP:GNG, no cites, no notes, no nothing, barely even an article much less a complete thought, completely base. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like the page has been BLPROD'ed for no refs on a bio article. Looks like it might be deleted one way or the other. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps merge into article about his band if such is not already present there. Dkendr (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete -- Fails GNG, cites no references, and has no context. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 18:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Neutral -- Crh23 makes some good points, so I am neutral. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 00:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I'm not convinced of a failure to meet WP:GNG. A quick search brought up lots of articles from a couple of sites, quite a few interviews, as well as some more mainstream coverage in non-celebrity focused sources (more: [1] [2] [3]). I think this is a case where he is a bigger deal in Lithuania than in English-speaking countries, so anglophones are naturally biased (by the lacks of English refs). With that amount of coverage (I have taken a maximum of one article from each source, and have excluded things that look like simple DBs), it looks to me like he passes WP:GNG. (Granted, the article needs some work!) — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 20:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that notability in Lithuanian doesn't confer notability in English - otherwise we'd need stub articles for this subject in Urdu, Faroese and Cantonese as well. Dkendr (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That opinion has no support in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. See WP:RSUE, which only deprecates non-English sources when English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. If such sources are not available then non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. This is an encyclopedia of the whole universe that happens to be written in English, not an encyclopedia of only the Anglophone world. The Urdu, Faroese and Cantonese Wikipedias set their own guidelines for article inclusion, so may or may not wish to have an article on this subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And we are talking about my opinion and what informs my opinions in AfD discussions. My vote on these subjects is not subject to disqualification or revocation because it's not founded on official doctrine. It only means that it can't be used as a justification for a unilateral action. Dkendr (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the whole nature of English Wikipedia so that it becomes only an encyclopedia of the Anglophone world then you need to propose a change to policy rather than just express an opinion at a deletion discussion. These discussions are held to decide whether article subjects conform to our current policies, not the dumbed-down policy that you are proposing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a rule that our sources must be in English — as long as our article is in English, the sources can be in any language so long as there are Wikipedia contributors who have the ability to read and translate it if needed. We can't stop you from having opinions, true — but if your opinion contravenes Wikipedia policy, then policy wins and your opinion carries zero weight. Bearcat (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:GNG, where it states, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Move to Draft instead if needed as this would still be questionable for solidity. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, could you please try to put your deletion rationale into plainer English, with some kind of justification for your opinion based on examination of potential sources. You may be right, but such comments that you make in very many deletion discussions don't make it at all clear what you actually mean, and what evidence you base your opinions on. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – "Solidity", as in the state of an article (?), has nothing to do with the notability of a subject on Wikipedia. See also WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per North America. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to Merge - Notability appears to derive primarily from the band, Žas. But of the four members, only this one has a stand-alone article. Delete to merge with band's article. X4n6 (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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