Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto Piedras (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ernesto Piedras
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Since I am an unregistered user, here are the detailed reasons why I think this article should be deleted: Notability is non temporary. Yet this guy hasn't had anything relevant for years. Doesn't seem to comply with either NPOV or NOR (particularly because the user that created the page was blocked for spam: creating the wikipedia page for the same consulting company he heads as well as this one -of its CEO-). In fact, seems to fall squarely into the self promotion and indiscriminate policy. In fact, it seems to squarely fall into the G11 category for Speedy deletion, as well as A7 for non importance (publication does not equal relevance). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.71.255 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion page created as requested by 92.225.71.255 (talk) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a Delete for me - doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC - I would like to note that I think the analysis of the nominator isn't quite right, notability is non temporary means to me that once someone has become notable, then they are notable forever, not that you have to keep demonstrating notability throughout your life, but I stand to be corrected obviously. nonsense  ferret  15:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete So I'm seeing some very basic coverage related to the telecomm industry in Mexico (such as it is), but nothing that would get him past WP:GNG. While he has worked for a Mexican state-owned company and two federal cabinet-level secretarias, that does not in and of itself confer notability. I could not source the claim that he worked with the executive branch in any capacity. Beyond that, being a professor at the ITAM is not notable (couldn't really find enough material to meet WP:PROF), and his company in general isn't really very notable either. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 01:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. We don't have enough evidence for WP:PROF. And although I found a number of news stories quoting him as an expert, I found none with the sort of nontrivial coverage of the subject himself that would be needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. A search for his name using Google Scholar returned few articles, and the most cited was a self-published, poorly edited book.  Seems like he does not meet notability criteria such as: Piedras' research has not made significant impact in his scholarly discipline; He has not received a highly prestigious academic award or honor; Ernesto has not been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association ; etc.  --Forich (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2013 (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.