Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiko da Silva

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiko da Silva[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)

PRODded by BoomboxTestarossa (talk · contribs) with with concern issues not addressed for 18 months or 10+ years. Possibly written by subject or someone close to them. Google search brings up little to suggest this person warrants a standalone article, and there appears to be no critical evaluation of their work., then deprodded by StarTrekker (talk · contribs) for alleged mass PROD, but then reinstated by BoomboxTestarossa. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Comics and animation, and Spain. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete issues not addressed for 18 months or 10+ years. Possibly written by subject or someone close to them. Google search brings up little to suggest this person warrants a standalone article, and there appears to be no critical evaluation of their work. Unsure if notability warrants a place on List of Galician people. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. I can turn up a lot of news articles, but they're all in a language unfamiliar to me. Hiding T 12:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. ~~Fails WP:ARTIST.~~ However, the subject probably meets WP:BASIC. It appears that they were involved in some kind of dispute with a local politician, which was covered multiple times by local media: here, here, here and here. Together with the sources currently in the article, I think the threshold of sigcov in multiple secondary sources might be technically fulfilled. This assumes that Galicia Confidencial and La Voz de Galicia are both independent of the subject and of each other, which I can't fully evaluate. I am also not convinced by the reliability of these sources; they appear to be small local papers, which often lack real editorial oversight. In a best-case scenario, the coverage on the subject just barely meets each of the individual criteria of WP:BASIC: sigcov (arguably yes) in multiple sources that are (probably) reliable and (probably) independent, and which do not all cover the same event WP:BIO1E. I'm not quite convinced on an intuitive level, but I think it might be enough for the criteria. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the article to include some of the above-mentioend content. My judgement remains the same, though. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated judgement after additional sources have been found. Actualcpscm (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is evident that the article needs a lot of work, but I see enough coverage to meet the notability criteria. Found a few more sources in the regional media: [1], [2], and [3]. Institutional coverage of local events: [4]. An online publication dedicated to art: [5]. And a research article focused on da Silva's work: [6].

More sources: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Alan Islas (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the sources presented above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although a few of the sources brought up by Alan Islas are permanently dead, other do seem to meet the requirements in WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2023 (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.