Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Casillas


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert Casillas

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have interest beyond the very most local. Bongo  matic  05:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the Wall Street Journal local now? Or a biography on a person who holds 3 national board of advisor positions within one industry local or featured on the The travel Channel or a Industry expert/consultant to Spike TV? Although I do respect Wiki Admins who must be vigilant when policing the community, this article DOES NOT VIOLATE Wiki guideline NOR DOES THIS article fit the criteria for deletion.Wiki BioInfo (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The coverage in the WSJ is limited to a quotation from the individual:
 * "Nobody is trying to beat us up anymore," says Robert Casillas, a strip-club consultant based in Las Vegas who advises nude-dancing facilities around the country. He says it's become easier for his clients to get permits for expansion and liquor sales in recent months.
 * This does not constitute "coverage of" an individual, let alone significant coverage. Bongo  matic  06:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Bongomatic a 'person of public interest or industry' that has a career and projects cited in multiple newspapers Providence Journal and Tucson Citizen and co authored an article for the Wall Street Journal although his quote you cited above was short, the person contributed to the article and not to mention the numerous educational articles in numerous magazines. Your intentions to delete this article sound malicious. CAN ANY OTHER WIKI CONTRIBUTORS NOT SEE THIS ARTICLE AS VALID ACCORDING TO WIKI CRITERIA? Bongomatic for you to request this article/bio to be deleted, don't you think you are abusing the Wiki guidelines? I feel this flag for deletion is absolutely extreme. And if you understood Wiki's criteria you should clearly see a significance to this article/Bio for the nightlife industry. Nothing personal to you Bongomatic, I respect your intentions if they are sound. THIS ARTICLE/BIO has multiple VERIFIABLE REFERENCES for social significance and many credible newspapers/agencies and publications for Robert Casillas' Biography, although his contributions to the nightlife industry may not be important to you, there is a social significance to this Bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki BioInfo (talk • contribs) 06:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Authoring articles in reliable publications doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines&mdash;being covered in them does. Indeed, articles written by a subject are, by definition, sources not "independent" of the subject. Bongo  matic  07:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Bongomatic I am still newer to writing articles, and I was told by others to write a couple before I begin writing many as I will be writing many more nightlife industry bios and specifically on other significant nightlife groups. That being said, much of the criteria you just cited above only reinforces and justifies this article in-question. And as the English Wikipedia notability guidelines state, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first." Furthermore, " We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." So Bongomatic, does this article not have numerous of each and were YOU NOT FOLLOWING GUIDELINES BY RECOMMENDING THIS ARTICLE FOR DELETION WITHOUT CARE TO SUGGEST ARTICLE REVISIONS OR SUGGESTIONS? I appreciate your help and support for others that are trying to contribute and I HOPE OTHERS CAN SEE THIS AS WELL AND SUPPORT THIS ARTICLE AND REALIZE that it may not be important or interesting to them personally, but definitely in accordance to Wiki and the community. I will continue to contribute and have been vigilant to have content 'notable' and have substantial and reliable independent sources in accordance to Wiki guidelines. But how can anyone contribute any content following these clear and evident criteria, yet have you recommending an article for deletion with no attempt to critique or assist? Maybe you can discuss how you would change this article? I think it is evident that this BIo/article has very substantial notable and numerous 'reliable independent sources' to validate this bio/article. Wiki BioInfo (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok Wiki BioInfo, first off, calm down. Shouting and posting walls of text is not going to help your case; you need to refer directly and succinctly to the notability guidelines in your arguments if you want them take seriously. As to the article's sources, I count two that could be useable under WP:RS. Both refs 6 and 7 are valid sources, although they are minor mentions only. For the rest: 1, 3, 10 and possibly 9 are affiliated with the subject (he wrote them); 2, 5 and 14 are trivial namechecks (and 5 is a blog, so not really acceptable as a source); 4, 8 and 11 don't appear to mention the subject at all (11 is in Spanish, but I can't see his name in the text) and 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 are dead links. Personally, I don't think he quite scrapes through on the two sources which do make the cut (they don't really show any degree of notability, being simple biog stubs), so I'm !voting Delete. Yunshui (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, well said, Yunshui, and thanks for your research. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, lack of independent sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete A real nobody ... can't find RELIABLE sources, and meets no wikipedia criteria for keeping ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:27, 28 September 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.