Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruben Flores Dapkevicius


 * 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. Participants suggest that the subject may be notable, but if he is, there is no content in the article worth salvaging. That is consistent with WP:TNT in the best case. causa sui (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruben Flores Dapkevicius

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was initially tagged for prod, but I've declined that as no actual prod rationale was provided at all; despite that fact, it's actually fairly clear why this might be deletable: it's basically written like a CV, with little if any evidence of actual notability and no reliable sources; all of its references are primary sources. This is basically a procedural nomination due to the lack of an explicit prod rationale, but I do agree with the prodder's assessment that the article is a delete in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree it's a pretty poor article and does come over as a partial CV, but that is simply an argument for improvement, not deletion. With that number of publications there must be at least a suspicion that he is notable. We need some input from someone involved in the field to make a decision on this. Emeraude (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What we need is actual reliable sources. It's also worth remembering that an AFD deletion does not mean he can never have an article; if someone comes along at a future date and writes a good article about him, that version can certainly be kept. The question at hand is whether he's entitled to this iteration of the article, and not a permanent ban on his ever being considered notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep without prejudice. I agree with Emeraude at this point: the article should be cleaned up, not deleted. However, if after more research, it turns out he isn't any more notable than the average professor, I would support a second nomination for, and the deletion of, the article at that time. —C.Fred (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible, providing that by "professor" we are using the word in the US sense (anyone who teaches at university) rather than the UK sense (i.e. head of university department)Emeraude (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. If he really was counsel to the president of Uruguay, as the Spanish version of the article (also proposed for deletion) claims, then that would probably be enough for notability. But we can't have an article without sources, the present article has no good sources, and I have been unable to turn up any. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as per G11 and A7. WP is not for posting résumés. Even the Spanish and Portuguese articles have already been deleted. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:34, 30 December 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.