Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rui Delgado

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. With no prejudice to article re-creation if better sources come up in the future. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Delgado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

So many refs and so very little evidence of notability. Most are at very best tangential and many make no mention of the subject. The archetypal puff piece which fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   04:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article has been modified to cleanup unnecessary information and add proper references so it has now the notability standards of WP:GNG.  Torchbit  ^{Torchbit Talk}   06:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This looks good to me. --Juancpena (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Here are press clips from written press that proves notability. Regrettably DR papers are not so digital and Google News is not allowed in Spain. https://www.evernote.com/l/ADfxctKFXdlAS6YDxw1te7lWQVlv4rtzpTM --Ruidelgado (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As far as I'm concerned, you can prove notability with articles that are not in English and that are not online. Edsab15 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC

• Comment - can somebody please point out which, if any, of these refs convey notability. Language isn't an issue. Spanish is fine, but where exactly can notability be found ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this cannot be taken seriously as an excellent example keeping, the simple number of current sources are still questionable actually and, if there's nothing better, this is best deleted until better is available. Overall article is still questionable, SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'd like to know which refs are considered questionable. This is why is hard to have a better representation of Dominicans on Wikipedia, since articles of the best newspaper in the country is considered "questionable".  Torchbit  ^{Torchbit Talk}   23:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - most of the sources in the article are from non-reliable sources (imdb, youtube), or are non-independent (crunchbase, evernote), or are not about him directly (about his company), or are interviews or articles by him (and therefore primary sources and not valid for notability purposes), or are mere mentions of him. The search engines do not turn up anywhere near enough to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The Evernote link is a collection of scanned magazine features and interviews of him in Spanish. How is best to reference offline refs so it'd be admisible? The WP:GNG doesn't specify this matter - Torchbit (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Note that the Keep votes are not actually convincing to actually keep and improve this with the article currently still seeming as questionable as when it first started. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 16 April 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.