Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elba Rosa Rodríguez-Fuentes


 * 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Elba Rosa Rodríguez-Fuentes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NBIO. Tagged for notability since July 2008. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk,  contribs ) 02:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Being the director of the legislative services commission is not enough on its own to establish notability. Her position as a judge was not either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep; if you add up all she has done, including the Special Independent Counsel Panel, I think we might get to GNG, but I cannot fully assess the article because I'm finding some Spanish-language sources example, but cannot read them.  We may want to see if someone else can. ? The article is a mess and needs work, but that's cleanup, not an AfD issue. I'd like to dig a bit deeper before tossing this one.  Montanabw (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What she does is irrelevant to whether she meets WP notability criteria, as asserted by John Patrick Lambert. That she have adequate sourcing in reliable, secondary sourcing does. In this case, I was able to access all of the sources noted on the file as "dead links" and all are primary sources. The article appears to be original research. Thus the question became are there RS to document her. I find very few references that are not legal cases. I have no doubt that she served as a superior court judge, special prosecutor, and director of the legislative services commission, but I do not find sufficient sourcing to confirm that outside of using primary documentation. The one source you found fits the criteria, but I find no others that aren't minor mentions. I changed the location of my browser and still was unable to find sourcing. SusunW (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Basically, I have seen WP:N as indicating that one good source (which one do you think meeds the criteria?) can be enough, though at least three is preferable.  It looks like we have pretty good verifiability, so the question is if we have notability.  I am reluctant to !vote delete on this article, but I am curious if you feel that it does need deletion, and am willing to take a second look at my original position in light of your assessment, which I respect.  Montanabw (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I looked for a reason to keep, especially under WP:NPOL criteria, but just could not find it. Nothing rises to meet those criteria and references do not otherwise support WP:GNG notability.--Rpclod (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as not only unconvincing for the applicable notability, there's no ease of actually forming an acceptable article, so together with the fact of a currently unacceptable and non-notable article, there's nothing to suggest this is anything else but a clear delete. SwisterTwister   talk  08:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.