Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magali Febles


 * 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. With few exceptions, both sides' arguments are poor; there is little analysis of the sources. A renomination after some time might help.  Sandstein  18:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Magali Febles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Has 1 solid reference, but the rest is web ephemera. Notability-tagged since 2010. Questionable claim for notability, though there seems to be plenty of web presence. Thought it time for community to weigh-in. Agricola44 (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep There is sufficient third party news coverage of her and besides she was the director of not only one, but three Miss Universe national organizations, which is a rare feat in itself.Antonio el Pisca Martin (orale) 11:41, 18 October, 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw the numberous YouTube/Instagram/Twitter/FaceBook hits too. The question is whether there is anything else. Agricola44 (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the Primera Hora (Puerto Rico) and several Dominican Republic leading newspaper articles about her?Antonio el Rico Rico Martin (loser's talk) 09:44, 19 October, 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are unsure yourself, why did you even nominate her? You do need to dive into a topic before a nomination. Not just nominate for any case and ask others questions. gidonb (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be addressing the editor who created the article. Agricola44 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Easily meets the WP:GNG. Should not have been nominated. gidonb (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is completely appropriate to have the community adjudicate an article that has been notability tagged since 2010. I will be glad to withdraw this AfD if you can attach any convincing evidence to your flippant "easily meets GNG" assertion. Agricola44 (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that with others and it appeared to be a quickly moving target. I do not know how it will be with you but Febles does not interest me enough to make an extensive mapping and then argue each item. The above is the conclusion of my unbiased analysis and I stand behind every word and letter I wrote. I invite each and everyone here to look in depth into the online references themselves. gidonb (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You stand behind every word you wrote about notability from your unbiased analysis on this particular article, which does not sufficiently interest you to actually analyze the sources, so you invite other people to do this for you. Do I have that about right? Agricola44 (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. It interested me enough to read through the online sources and provide a well considered opinion. It does not interest me enough to go into lengthy discussions, as the one you invite me to hold. Hence I invite everyone to form his or her own educated conclusions based on the sources that are out there, just as I did. gidonb (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure we're looking at the same sources: [1] As a brief bio in a book, I agree this one is legit, [2] is a website, but the link is broken, [3] is a private blog, and [4] is another broken web-link. Are these the sources upon which you found your well considered opinion? Some searching turns up peripheral hits in, for example, Primera Hora, but nothing very convincing. So, I guess I'm still at a genuine loss as to what these sources to which you refer to actually are. Could you kindly elaborate?...because it may change several people's minds here, including mine. Agricola44 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are trying to hold onto the sources in the article. Sources that are available through Google News should be considered to decide if Febles is notable. Perhaps you failed to do this? gidonb (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As I just said: Some searching turns up peripheral hits in, for example, Primera Hora, but nothing very convincing, so I ask again for the n-th time if you would kindly elaborate on the sources to which you have been cryptically referring. It would save us all a lot of time if you would just list a few links. We could all then just have a look. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See my earlier comments. gidonb (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What I see is another refusal to share sources you claim to have with the panelists here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete lack of indepth coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if those who are claiming there is plenty of coverage would provide actual evidence of that coverage. Lepricavark (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * With so much pressure saying keep is becoming a day job while saying delete or just shrugging is the easy way out. This is how WP loses many notable articles. gidonb (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable businessperson. Sources are not WP:SIGCOV; just passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough to have an article for the subject.---Richie Campbell (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient third party sources to comply with WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Might you elaborate? Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  14:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is an odd discussion. The "keeps" are mostly flippant claims that GNG is satisfied. I've asked gidonb to elaborate, but to no avail. I've also asked if BabbaQ could elaborate. I've described a number of serious problems casting doubt on the notability of this individual and it seems to me that there is some burden (yet to be met, IMO) for the "keeps" to defend their position with more than just playing the GNG card. Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2017 (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.