Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ángel Castelli

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 delete. ✗plicit 13:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Castelli[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BASIC. ROTM doctor whose page only exists because the author (now blocked for sockpuppeteering) was on a quest to make Wikipedia their own genealogy website (WP:NOTGENEALOGY). References to him in the sources are all trivial. Could qualify under WP:G5 but another user made some edits, so I went with AfD because this figure is not notable. Pilaz (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable based on current article, and written entirely from Google Books snippets which at least in one case bastardized context. Three refs provide only passing mention. Fourth looks like a self-published biography of his son, written by a descendant, and still the snippets I can see are passing. That said, the first current reference is to a journal review of recent historical writings of some sort, and has the text: . . . en 1961, y "Angel Castelli Salomon, medico y boticario de Buenos Aires en el Siglo XVIII" en el mismo año, an apparent reference to a 1961 biography with this man as its subject - that could represent notability (or it could be written by the same self-pubishing descendant). Likewise, another snippet I found begins what appears to be a detailed biography of the man, but no way to tell if independent of the 1961 title, plus genealogy articles like this decide whom to describe based solely on whether they belong to the subject family, so inclusion doesn't really indicate personal notability. May turn out this person is notable, but any article would need complete rewriting to replace this inapproriate Google snippet-based version anyhow. Agricolae (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I can see nothing in the article to demonstrate notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2021 (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.