Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estella Sanchez


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Estella Sanchez

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable; lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Her organization Sol Collective seems to have some coverage, but I can't find much coverage of her as an individual. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 16:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 16:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete non-notable activist. Article also lacks any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. I have seen some good articles that feature her and her work which appears to be fairly well known. Her work with Sol |Sol to steer kids away from gangs and crime has got her some hood attention. Karl Twist (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I've added some sources. Most of them seem to be local to Northern California.  Sol Collective does indeed seem to have gotten some attention, but maybe the article should be about it instead of its founder. Removed mention of her awards which was unsourced.  If someone can find sources for those, it  might tilt this page towards a more decisive Keep. ABF99 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC) I'm changing my !vote to redirect to Sol Collective, as most of the sources still seem to be about the organization rather than about her as a notable person. Though Karl Twist has found new sources about her as a musician, this may be a case of WP:TOO SOON. Promo language does need to be cleaned up. ABF99 (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, it's all about tidying it up with better refs which are out there. It just needs work. Karl Twist (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article Subject is notable, its needs more source to be added as per "Comment census".--Blaze8724 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC) This user has been uncovered as now being used by a past advertising-only account, apparently with a new rampage of contributions. SwisterTwister   talk  04:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Of note is that at the time of nomination for deletion, the article was unsourced (link). However, sources were added thereafter. Pinging and  to revisit the discussion for an evaluation of sources added to the article.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sources are too feeble to support notability. Memo to creator: BLPs are expected to reccord substantial career achievement. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Comment, while I have no doubt that the article meets the requirement for notability, the main issue is that it needs work. I could put in a bit myself but I'd like to see the article take better shape with other participants. Karl Twist (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a blatant advertisement alone, the first paragraph says it all and it gets worse considering nothing else followed amounts to convincing substance. SwisterTwister   talk  23:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding the above. While I agree with SwisterTwister that it looks like an advertisement in the beginning and it is a tangled mess, I think that the article should stay and be preserved. The article was formed with the stuff in the first paragraph saying the most but in the wrong way and style. It needs to be unraveled and then re-written. Then I believe that the article can take shape. Sanchez is a musician as well and has released a recording, but I think we need to re work the article and then take a look at it to see how it sits. Worst case scenario, we can have an article for the Sol Collective, and re-direct to there, But I still maintain there is enough to keep this article. It just needs a good amount of work! Karl Twist (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  SST  flyer  12:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Promo of typical "empowering communities"-type of activist with nothing encyclopedic to say. Agricola44 (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete Simply being covered briefly in context of an organisation doesn't add up to notability (BLP1E). The sources are all local sources btw and it is very obvious that this article was created with the intention to promote. I'm personally not convinced that the arts collective is notable either (with all local coverage), so I prefer to go with a delete here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:26, 28 October 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.