Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseba Sandoval

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 speedy delete. per G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anatha_Gulati SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseba Sandoval

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

Nominating article for deletion on notability grounds. The sources cited by the article describe the subject as a photographer and cite his photos ([1] [2] [3]), but are not based on the subject himself. The Huffington Post article cited [4] likewise refers to the subject as a photographer and quotes him, but the article itself is not about him and quotations of the subject are minor. The final source cited is owned by the subject [5] and falls under WP:COI. This article was previously nominated for speedy deletion by myself on notability and advertising grounds. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article contains numerous sources such as [6] [7] [8] which contain significant coverage about the subject, therefore the article passes WP:GNG. The articles do not have to only cover the subject alone to count towards notability. To use the inclusion standards outlined by nominator above would leave practically nothing that would count. Please see WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V. Antonioatrylia (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of enough ghits[9] including non-English sources. The subject is noatble and meets BLP criteria. Accuren (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From my inquiry, none of the results provided by the search you linked turned up any results for the article subject. Most turn up a reference to Sandoval and nothing else.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources currently on the page provide in-depth coverage of Sandoval, as required to meet the general notability guideline. Google hits are not an indicator of notability. My own searches have found no reliable, independent sources where Sandoval is the subject or discussed in depth. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:49, 3 August 2017 (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.