Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca and Loraine Baricchi

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. Merge and spilt can be discussed outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luca and Loraine Baricchi

[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)

Loraine Barry is already an article. They are not notable for being a couple. All refs are primary sources. ツStacey (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ツStacey (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Loraine is independently notable, and has her own article accordingly. Luca could arguably be said to be independently notable as well, though there are far less sources regarding him than his former partner. However, this double-biography article does not seem appropriate as they are not really notable for being a couple, specifically. I was initially going to propose that this could be renamed and repurposed to be about Luca alone, as he does not currently have an independent article. However, as none of the sources currently included in the article are valid, doing so would really be no different that starting over from scratch to begin with. Rorshacma (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not notable while being twice world champions? What a ridiculous judgement.- Altenmann >talk 02:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that they aren't notable, its that they, Loraine in particular, are more notable as individuals than as part of the duo, and it does not make a whole lot of sense to have double biographical articles. And, between having individual articles or a combined article, the former makes more sense. Particularly as they have not been partners since 2010, and have both continued their individual careers separately since then. Rorshacma (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oh sheesh, loraine more notable than the duo? Which highrr accolades did she won outside the duo? Besides, wikipedia not paper can have individusl bios as well as couple. - Altenmann >talk 02:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 05:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ballroom dance is a legitimate competition, actually considered by the Olympics for inclusion (unsuccessfully, but with a level of seriousness. A championship "team" certainly can be expected to meet notability standards. The nom does not argue that the subject is not notable, only that the article is lousy. Wikipedia is infested with articles about professional wrestling "tag teams", which compete for fake championships staged by their employers with no actual competitive elements. Until we're ready to apply the same standards to real competitions and made-up ones, we should at the very least keep our coverage of the real ones. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2020 (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.