Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel González


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Miguel González

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No obvious claim to notability. Only one secondary source here deals with Gonzalez in depth, discussing an incident about parking tickets. Other secondary sources include official poll results in which he failed to achieve elected office, and an anonymous Internet comment criticizing him. Does not appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Khazar (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN; unelected, and no significant discussion in reliable sources. At the very least that forum page has to go. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I failed to expand the article because of time matters, I promise to get to it as soon as possible; I am sure there are many sources around to help get this to a better 'spotlight' (dyk) in the near future. González has been involved in several political incidents, though the only one listed in the article is about the parking tickets. I'll do my best, as soon as possible, but please withdraw the nomination. I even took the time to take González a photograph :D Thank you. Diego Grez (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Diego, can you just give a few links to reliable sources first to clearly demonstrate notability? Right now the sources in the article seem to really be a stretch. If you don't mind, I'd like to go ahead and just delete the anonymous commenter from the Internet, unless you have a reliable secondary source that discusses this comment as significant somehow.Khazar (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I used it to point out the "hate" against González locally, there's no point besides that to have it on the article; there has been, apparently, no discussion on it elsewhere. However, local newspaper Pichilemu News has reported several controversies involving this person: Discusses him having a radio programme ("Enlace Comunal" - "Communal Link", though not the main topic of the article - he conducts the radio programme along with Hugo Toro, another politician, (not Pichilemu News) discusses his, a former mayor's and then-mayor's involvement in the parking tickets controversy, Discussing his involvement after he denounced polution at Petrel Lake (fun fact, the newspaper called the Municipality of Pichilemu, the Independent Republic of Pichilemu), here being discussed in El Mercurio (subscription only... though the content of the report was forked somewhere in Pichilemu News... here). And I could continue to find sources, there are some printed ones! Diego Grez (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding so quickly. I'd consider a local online-only newspaper to be a bit borderline, but I don't know much about what Chilean news sources are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. The Mercurio one would count, I'd think, though the discussion of Gonzalez in it is very thin. I'm still leaning enough toward delete that I'd like to leave this open, but I'm willing to be overruled by others. Khazar (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article quite a bit only with the sources I gave above. I still think the article could be expanded furthermore, but I think it is in a good shape right now. What do you think? Diego Grez (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's definitely getting closer, but I'm still hesitant per my reasoning above. The GNG calls for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The Mercurio source is reliable, but the coverage is minor; the Pichilemu News stories are more thorough, but as an online newspaper that until 2009 was hosted as a blog, I'm not sure P. News counts as an RS. So in short, I'm not sure I'm seeing 2+ instances of significant coverage in reliable sources, but I agree I may not be the best judge. I'd like to leave this open and invite comment with users who may be more familiar with these publications, and if I'm overturned, it's fine with me. Khazar (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Crisco. I fail to see anything that makes this individual notable in any capacity. Striker force Talk  Review me! 14:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article as it is now? The individual has provoked most of the controversies in the Municipality of Pichilemu, and that's exactly what is discussed the article now. I agree, the article was crap when it was nominated for deletion, but I put a great deal of effort to find good sources, expand it and show González is notable. Please revise your comment. Thank you. Diego Grez (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So the individual may have "provoked most of" a set of political controversies... and? If Wikipedia had an article about every politician at any level that had ever been a part of a controversy, it could probably add 100k articles to the 3M+ that are here already. My comment stands. Striker force Talk  Review me! 05:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of an aside, as Strikerforce observed, but I also have to question why, if his involvement in these controversies was so critical, he's not even mentioned in the article about the controversies. cmadler (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is not completed yet. There are some sections that need expanding and in these ones, González is a main topic. Diego Grez (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I didn't realize on my first pass that Pichilemu is a town of only 12,000 people, which I'm sorry to say I think calls notability farther into question here. Khazar (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pichilemu is the capital of Cardenal Caro Province, as I pointed out above, and is a "city" under Chilean law. Despite the fact that its population isn't high (as of 2002), the subject has been discussed in several sources, and that is, for me enough for a Wikipedia article. Diego Grez (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing the notability of Pichilemu but of a resident who has unsuccessfully run for elected office there. Khazar's point, I think, is that a 12,000 person city that's the capital of a Chilean province is the equivalent of a US county seat such as Kalispell, Montana. Consider a hypothetical person who ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Kalispell in 1992 (as a Democrat), ran unsuccessfully for the Kalispell City Council in 2002 (as a Green), and who uncovered a bribery scandal in which a current and former mayor of Kalispell took about $2,000. My point by changing the place and names is that, considered in that light, absent further evidence of media coverage of him, while the city is certainly notable and the scandal(s) probably notable, the individual seems not to be notable. cmadler (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete notability would be as a journalist, not a politician--5% of the vote for mayor anywhere is not inherently notable. (I'm personally of the opinion that major party candidates for national level office such as US senators are notable even if the do not win election, because they would have to be notable politicians to get that far & there are always refs. This would also apply to candidates for mayors of cities like NYC which also have national significance & perhaps Santiago, Chile,   But I would not extent that to minor party candidates, and not to mayors of small cities. Certainly not to minor party candidates for mayors of small cities). Showing the notability of journalists unless they win awards is very difficult here, because there are very rarely articles about them.  Again, I personally would be more flexible for important journalists at national media, but he is not anywhere near that stature-- a "radio presenter" in a provincial capital.  The article is essentially publicity for him, & nothing more. Reporting about important events does not make people notable, unless the reports themselves are important.    DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 17 June 2011 (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.