Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johannes Hill

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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Hill

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

Advertising, non-notable PabloMartinez (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep in light of the coverage—it's not a huge amount but it's certainly sufficient to establish notability. A trout for this blatantly bad-faith nomination, though; what exactly do you think is "advertising" here? Do you think opera companies recruit their performers on the basis of their Wikipedia entries? ‑ Iridescent 20:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep not our usual pop-culture subject, so if a fringe subject raises its head above the GNG level we should be ready to include it, even when most of us haven't got a clue what a baritone does. Agathoclea (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The nominator's claim of "advertising" is unsupported. Sufficient coverage to establish notability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough reliable references and external links; not another orphan article .LouisAlain (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I added places and colleagues and reviews. Interesting scenic collage of Bach's Passion with the trials in 1945, but can't go into more detail. Seems too much already, but I felt provoked ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—And I second the suggestion of a fish course for the filer for the bizarre nom. Is there something going on that we don't know / ought to know here? In any case, there is clearly sufficient sourcing—in news and the literature to indicate a depth and persistence of coverage to pass the minimum requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This singer has had an interesting career so far, and is likely to be active for a while.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC based on the sources currently in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2018 (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.