Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esteban Escobar

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esteban Escobar

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

This article is repeatedly recreated. The current version has multiple sources, and they're very nicely formatted, too. Not a one of them meets the reliable source guidelines. Do we think that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are many other potential sources on the subject and all of the claims are verifiable. From research, the subject appears to be local self-starter with fingers in many pies, clearly has social relevance. In terms of notability, there are fairly substantial references to the subject in imultiple independent sources online (which will make their way onto the wiki page), awards and honors are present. The case is borderline, but I think on the side of notable. P.S. examiner.com is blocked as a source on Wiki, but was going to be used. Anastasia Bykova (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple independent sources online, why did you only cite press releases when you created the article? Could you add some of the independent sources to the article? Examiner.com isn't a reliable source, unfortunately. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because Diversity News are an information spammer, clearly :-) Just added one non-press-release, also the Shorty Award ref was not a press release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana Bykova (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Escobar is the editor-in-chief of Diversity News. Yahoo Voices, like Examiner.com, will publish pretty much anything they are sent, and what you've added clearly originates from Escobar and says nothing about his significance to his field. I don't know what a 'Shorty award' is, or whether it is a notable award or not, but Escobar didn't win one, and anyone can nominate anyone for one, so being nominated is not an accomplishment. To show this person is notable, you'll need to find things about his importance that he didn't write himself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found other sources that qualify as independent. However, after a thorough examination they do not represent in depth coverage of the subject. As a result of this research, I feel happy to change my mind and say that the subject is not notable. The page should, therefore, be deleted. I would also suggest blocking it in some way (if at all possible), so that an article couldn't be added without a prior request. I think that would be fair given the fact that a very informed decision was made, not simply on the basis that the article didn't refer to anything, but on the basis of lack of notability. Thank you for your patience, Anastasia Bykova (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE; awards nominations were public nominations via Twitter etc., and his (public) People's Choice Awards nomination is for "People’s Choice Fan Award for Favorite Profile Picture on Facebook", according to the announcement on his website. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet our standards of notability. Long and disgusting history of shameless spamming and publicity efforts on his behalf are of course irrelevant to the discussion, but should be noted for the record. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2012 (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.