Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francisco Marmolejo


 * 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   no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Francisco Marmolejo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —John Z (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not see enough evidence of passing WP:PROF. Heading a unit at the U. of Arizona is not enough to meet WP:PROF criterion #6 (highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society). By the way, this has the looks of an incipient WP:WALL, created by users Ojuelos1 (apparently deleted) and Ojuelos. See these articles: AMPEI, CONAHEC. --Eric Yurken (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Publications have received minimal attention; negligible news coverage for admin activities.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Head of an international organizations such as CONAHEC, the Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration, is a major executive position, and sufficient for notability.DGG (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep-- Article in the Spanish Wikipedia is more clear establishing notability. He is the executive director of CONAHEC, an international educational organization. 1 (scroll to the end). His participation in the organization has made him notable in the Spanish media, 2--Jmundo (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 01:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * comment I'm not terribly bothered if this one is kept, but I'm not sure there is much of a basis for writing/sourcing the article -- a google news search, here, doesn't produce all that much. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. On the contrary, I would say that the search linked by Nomoskedasticity produces more than enough to show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (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.