Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilar Gonzalo


 * 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. Secret account 23:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Pilar Gonzalo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Academic who seems to fail WP:PROF - written a book and a few things that have 1-3 cites on Google Scholar but nothing major. Article was created back in 2006 and has been orphaned since; originator User:Wikitaun hasn't done much since. It's a bit sensitive because as a web programs person at the Reina Sofia she could be a useful contact for the GLAM people, and deleting her bio article might not go down well, but I think it's got to be done. Le Deluge (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The "useful contact" thing fails WP:NOTDIR too -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete. per nom. Star767 (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete no assertion of WP:N (unsure wether the spanish language google news results constitute WP:GNG).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. No real sources. WorldCat doesn't appear to even know about the "zombies" book, so this may not have been published in the conventional sense (article calls it both a book and an essay – could be an unpublished pamphlet). Uncontroversial case. Agricola44 (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete No evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As regards the claimed sensitivity, nobody who would be offended by our applying the same policies and guidelines to her article that we do to any others could possibly be a useful contact to assist in building a neutral encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:50, 21 March 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.