Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazmín Chebar


 * 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   keep. With apologies to, closing per WP:SNOW. Notability is agreed upon by all but two editors here, and appears clearly confirmed by Google Books hits indicated by Dr. Blofeld and by the other sources now in the article. Premature nomination: nominator is strongly urged to follow WP:BEFORE and to make a better effort to establish notability. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Jazmín Chebar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why notability may be presumed in lieu of sources as provided by WP:ANYBIO. Of the two sources offered, one is WP:PRIMARY and the other is an utterly trivial mention. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. Did you look in google books? Clearly meets GNG .♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Here are a few sources for expansion:, , , . There are plenty more, but I've got a hair appointment and that trumps expanding this article. By the way, lots of us are creating biographies on notable women today for the Meetup/ArtAndFeminism edit-a-thon. It would be great to have additional editor participation. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It'sd a bit silly to take an article created by an experienced editor like Rosiestep to AFD within minutes of it being created, without first doing such revolutionary things as, say, talking? Or PROD, if you have to. Clearly notable per the sources given above. Nom is reminded of WP:BEFORE and I for one would appreciate it I didn't need to waste my time on things like this. --Randykitty (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep,not 'clearly' notable, considering all except one of the sources are blogs or about her company (not her). But on top of the La Nacion article already cited, there is another news feature in 2012, which leads me to suspect the claims of importance are true. Sionk (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is about her/her company combined.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be about both, though obviously there is some overlap. Sionk (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep as per . I added a couple of sources. i can't asses the Spanish-language sources, but the en ones are not good. i added a couple but this is still rather weak. DES (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There seem to be enough reliable sources presented to satisfy the notability criteria.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 02:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I see some coverage in some rather poor sources and some passing mentions like, but what is the real claim to notability here? IRWolfie- (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, Im surprised this was even nominated!, As above it's clearly sourced and thus passes GNG. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  03:29, 2 February 2014 (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.