Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Riquelme

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. Anas ^talk? 17:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Riquelme

my prod was contested because the person believes this guy is wiki worthy. Meanwhile, he didn't improve the article at all or say why the guy is wiki worthy. I am still scratching my head wondering why this guy is more wiki worthy than the millions of other artists in the world. Postcard Cathy 02:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS The guy that deleted the prod is not that interested in improving the article. I forget exactly what he said now but basically it was if I get to it, I will get to it and he didn't tell me anything about why he thought the guy was notable. If the person that contested the prod is not interested enough to let us know why he is notable - and he is only interested enough in contesting the prod - I don't know if we will ever know why this guy is notable. Postcard Cathy 17:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article stands or falls based on its references. The two links given there do not assert sufficient notability to pass
WP:BIO. Google has 1,000 hits, which is borderline. Shalom ^Hello 04:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. First reference claims to be an article about subject's appearance in the F9 gallery, but it is a news post on said gallery's website and thus not an independent source. Second source seems to be a blog. Fails primary notability criterion. A Train^talk 06:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think he'd struggle to pass WP:BIO going on the sources that exist.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having checked on a search engine, I can't find any reliable sources to assert notability. This is especially the art gallery's website isn't really a good secondary source, a newspaper is--
Kylohk 12:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I have addressed the questions on the sources above. The original newspaper review is now posted in place of the Gallery's copy of the review. I also added a second gallery source, and an art critic review. TheMindsEye 14:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
John Vandenberg 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete does not meet
WP:BIO Johnbod 16:51, 10 July 2007 (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.