Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordhy Ledesma


 * 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. No convincing argument that the sources provided are significant, reliable and independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 11:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Jordhy Ledesma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article, originally created by Jordhy Ledesma himself, does not establish notability. All of the sources provided are primary even when they are reliable. The claim that he is an "award winning poet" is backed only by this source, which refers to him as nothing more than a "guest poet". The "First Dominican Biennial of Short-story Telling", another claim to notability, appears to no longer have a website. The other poetry organization he was a representative at has its official website on blogspot. The whole article is just more and more of this sort of self-aggrandizing. There are no secondary sources, no verified claims to notability, and nothing he has done would qualify under any of the notability sub-guidelines. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I've had a look for coverage, but just can't see anything which makes this notable - maybe it is because I'm not in web 3.0 yet. nonsense  ferret  02:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The issue of notability was discussed a year ago. From then some links have been removed. The coverage includes the Society for Global Information, the biggest latin american newspaper, etc. The Biennial website is indeed hosted on Blogspot, so? When looking for coverage I found about twenty links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.111.155 (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So, I think you'd better have a read of the wikipedia notability guidelines which require substantial independent coverage in reliable sources - WP:GNG, and WP:BIO - it really isn't sufficient to have your name mentioned in a newspaper. Further, I should draw your attention to the guidelines regarding conflict of interest, so if you are Jordhy or someone connected to him, it would be best to declare this in the interests of openness, and you would be strongly discouraged from editing the article yourself per the guidelines. nonsense  ferret  14:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue of notability was already discussed last year. See the article history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.111.155 (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you aren't going to close down discussion here by these means - if you believe the article should be kept then you need to make a case for it based on the notability guidelines linked to above. I would remind you also about the need for openness concerning any conflict of interest  nonsense  ferret  14:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the notability guidelines: "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." - The subject of the article's notability was extensively discussed last year (refer to article's history). Media coverage includes multiple sources, please refer to the totality of the sources. Article seems notable to me. In particular, Google Image search seems compelling. However, I agree the article needs editing, I see the need for some citations. Notability = Multiple External sources + Reliable + Focus on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.111.155 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the totality of the references provided does not constitute significant independent coverage. The newspaper article cited is a passing mention of the subject's name as being at a writing event - this is very far from significant coverage which would need to discuss the contribution the writer has made to the field of literature in order to establish notability.  Nobody is going to be convinced by a google image search, particularly given the subject's focus on marketing himself online.  I note also your failure to make any statement regarding Conflict of interest  nonsense  ferret  15:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The newspaper article cites the poet as an "invited poet" not as a "guest poet" like you previously stated. You fail to review to other links and focus only on one link that's written in Spanish, which you probably don't understand because of your previous failure to adequately translate the citation. Not connected to this person, however it seems to me that you are. I find that the article could benefit from greater citation but discard your opinion around the significance of the coverage. Please refer to the totality of the citations. Again, please refer to prior discussions about the notability of the article. Where going in circles here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.111.155 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You will note that I neither used the word 'invited' or 'guest' as this is totally irrelevant to whether or not a passing mention of the name in connection with a publicised event represents substantial coverage - it does not. Happy to consider in detail each of the references provided, see below. Ridiculous to try to suggest that I have a COI - my history of edits across a very wide range of subjects speaks for itself, where is your history of edits?  If there is a discussion previously on WP you want to be considered, then I suggest you provide a link to it

nonsense ferret  18:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The references serve as citations to sustain each claim of the biographical article. Some links dead but the Google/Internet Archive cache shed some light on them. Some talk about notability in page history. Page needs editing.


 * lets address the new material provided in turn:
 * table 2, link 2 - looks very much like a blog post which sets out to name 200 writers from San Cristobal - Ledesma has three lines stating he is a writer, he graduated from a university, he edits a magazine portado.com, knows a lot about web design, and authored a few titles. This is not a reliable source within the meaning of the wikipedia policies for notability.  Even if it were a reliable source, which it is not, this is not substantial coverage and also is likely to lack independence - there is nothing here which shows any notability within the terms of WP:GNG or WP:BIO.
 * table 2, link 3 - as a blog promoting an event - this is not a reliable source, it does not constitute significant coverage, and is not independent - therefore this does not add to the subjects notability. The fact that the subject was an undefeated chess champion at school may be very interesting to some, but it is an example of why none of these details meet the WP:AUTHOR. Similarly being editor in chief at portado.com which doesn't exist any more is not a notable appointment.
 * table 2, link 6 - This is an archive of an email concerning the World Summit Youth Awards - a website which Ledesma was responsible for was selected as one of Dominican's entries for the competition - that makes it one of over 300 applications. The three main categories of winner reported on the site were development/creativity and culture/and community engagement -  The winning sites can be viewed at  and as far as I can see Ledesma was not one of these winners.  Being a nominee doesn't seem to be the same as winning an award, a bit like the Oscars I suppose.  What is different about this is that being nominated for an Oscar makes you notable, being nominated for an award at the world summit youth award just doesn't have the same level of notability.  I have read the youth award site very carefully and can find no mention of the subject.  There is no mention of the subject on any of the official sites relating to these awards, certainly there is no reference that he has won anything  Even if the subject were the overall winner at those awards, which clearly he wasn't, it would still not in itself bring them within the terms of WP:GNG.  The fact that it isn't even mentioned on the official website underlines the point even more.
 * table 2, link 7 - being a judge in a school maths competition might seem notable to you, but I submit that it does not meet the levels of notablity required of WP:GNG.
 * table 2, link 8 - yet another blog entry about san cristobal culture, not a reliable source, with an almost exact word for word copy of the same short biography noted in table 2, link 3 - this underlines that it is not independent, and certainly nothing mentioned here constitutes notability within the terms of WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR.
 * table 2, link 9 - so this is a marketing blogger who is a twitter contact of the subject and wants to promote him with comments like "The guy bleeds tech and more specifically, knows how to lord it when it comes to execution of the right plan" - all very interesting, but this doesn't register as a reliable source, nor is it significant coverage, nor is it independent.
 * table 2, link 10 - the subject is not even mentioned here - note that notablity is not inherited per WP:NOTINHERIT which means that even if the company to which you were associated were notable, it would not make you automatically notable.
 * In summary there is nothing in this 'new' material which is even close to falling within WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The conclusion remains the same, the article should be deleted unless significant independent coverage in reliable sources can be found.  nonsense  ferret  00:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Some corrections
 * table 2, link 2 - Agreed.
 * table 2, link 3 - Neutral. Might be interesting to some.
 * table 2, link 6 - The link actually refers to the World Summit Awards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_Award not the Youth awards. You have to redo the analysis. How do you grade the importance of these awards?
 * table 2, link 7 - Refers to the Iberoamerican Math Olympiads (Similar to the IMO, but for Latinos), not a schools' math competition. Subject is listed as Chief of Delegation in two Iberoamerican Math Olympiads in which his country won two bronze medals. Wikipedia article also lists subject as "First Place in National Mathematics Olympiad". IMHO these assertions don't look trivial. More references:, ,
 * table 2, link 8 - Neutral
 * table 2, link 9 - Don't agree. The website is independent, reputable, and the coverage is significant. Does the fact that the writer is a Twitter contact of the subject have any relevance when the writer is publishing thru a secondary source that lends its editorial POV? Barack Obama is also a Twitter contact of the subject, can we assume any endorsement because of that?
 * table 2, link 10 - Subject is listed as principal of the firm so if the firm were notable inheritance would apply. Found a second similar link http://hoy.com.do/rostros/2006/1/28/188387/Los-premios-de-la-corona
 * In summary I find the article interesting, it is very rare for a person to do so many things at an internationally recognized level. According to WP:GNG the article is verifiable, and the sources are independent of the subject. With the two cited newspapers (the invited poet one and the firm's), I would presume notability alone on those sources. Significant coverage can be based on the fact that the subject is been quoted as selected from a large pool of participants, as a sponsor, or as deputy in a prestigious math competition. For me, significant coverage doesn't have to mean a large article in a magazine but a large endorsement. So, IMHO, these are not mere mentions but attributions given to the subject by important institutions. Evidence shows subject gained significant independent coverage or recognition as WP:GNG seeks. 65.88.88.156 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The analysis can be summarised quite simply. The subject has failed to win any significant awards. Your personal definition of what is significant coverage is irrelevant, because the wikipedia guidelines are long established and that is the test we must apply here - none of the references cited represents signficant independent coverage in a reliable source, and as such there is no notability attaching to the subject. None of these links represent significant coverage, on the contrary they are not even marginal cases.  There is no independent reliable source which discusses critically the importance of the subject.  It is very very far from meeting the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR - if you wish to establish notability you will have to refer specifically to the definitions provided by wikipedia rather than making up your own definitions of what the requirements mean. I appreciate that as a self-styled internet marketing guru, the subject is very keen to have a big profile on wikipedia, however wikipedia isn't here to provide a platform for the promotion of marketing 'gurus'.  nonsense  ferret  18:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)  And the point I forgot to make, the wikipedia guidelines are very clear that notability is NOT inherited - saying you think that notability is inherited in contradition of the guidelines won't help your case either, see WP:NOTINHERITED.  nonsense  ferret  18:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Hence, keep. 65.88.88.156 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry - you don't get two votes in the same IP address - please remove either one of the votes ASAP nonsense  ferret  18:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note for closing admin - there are apparently two different users contributing keep votes as signed out users, both of whom think the article 'needs editing' but is notable without any reference to WP:GNG etc - both ip addresses are based in the new york area (where coincidentally the subject of the article is also based) and both users don't seem to know that comments are meant to be signed - little coincidences I'm sure, but I thought that should be laid out in the open. nonsense  ferret  23:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Sourcing in the article failes to meet the either significande, or being a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 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.