From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Gil Peñalosa

Gil Peñalosa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an urban planner and as yet unelected political candidate, not properly referenced as passing a Wikipedia notability standard. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in future elections -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if either (a) they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies.
But neither of those has been shown here at all; there's one news article about his candidacy, which is not in and of itself enough to vault his candidacy over the ten year test for enduring importance, and the content about his background and prior career is referenced entirely to sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the self-published primary source websites of directly affiliated organizations, blogs and Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in October if he wins the election, but simply being a candidate is not grounds for an article at all, and nothing else here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him and his work from having to be the subject of a lot more than just one piece of media coverage. Bearcat ( talk) 12:00, 27 July 2022 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Gil Peñalosa

Gil Peñalosa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an urban planner and as yet unelected political candidate, not properly referenced as passing a Wikipedia notability standard. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in future elections -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if either (a) they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies.
But neither of those has been shown here at all; there's one news article about his candidacy, which is not in and of itself enough to vault his candidacy over the ten year test for enduring importance, and the content about his background and prior career is referenced entirely to sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the self-published primary source websites of directly affiliated organizations, blogs and Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in October if he wins the election, but simply being a candidate is not grounds for an article at all, and nothing else here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him and his work from having to be the subject of a lot more than just one piece of media coverage. Bearcat ( talk) 12:00, 27 July 2022 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook