Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susana A. Herrera Quezada (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Susana A. Herrera Quezada
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

In spite of the last changes made to this article after it was nominated and discussed for the first time, it keeps being just an auto-promoting entry of a not notable architect. maxat (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Architect is well known and has accomplished work on many buildings as outlined in her article. --Faith (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Faith: How do you now that she's a well known architect? I know the Chilean architectural context (being Chilean and architect) and I can say that this article is nothing more than a CV. I can't see how can it be that you don't realize that... it's so obvious. If Wikipedia accepts this kind of articles, then I should post my own resume here. This is an encyclopedia, not a Head Hunter's webpage!!!! maxat (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would suggest you look at WP:NOTE, which outlines the criteria for notability.   Being written up in multiple independent reliable sources, all the magazine articles, is enough for notablity. The article being poorly written is not an indicator for deletion, but for clean-up. --Faith (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:NOTE clearly states that sources should be reliable and independent. these are not. Gorgonzola (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment': Indeed they are independent: Casa, etc., el Sur, Vivienda y Decoración by El Mercurio, and Architecture Week are not tied to Herrera. Neither are the other magazine write-ups. --Faith (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: They sure are independent (i.e. not belonging to ms Herrera), but they are not architecture magazines, or publications belonging to the architectural discipline. They're weekend supplements of newspapers, and any mention there doesn't imply any notability at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxat (talk • contribs) 17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please note how subject fails to fulfill any of the criteria for notability as creative professional or academic. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Creative professionals, including architects, can be a person who has "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work which has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". She meets that criterion. --Faith (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: ehem, no, she doesn't. The sources cited do not assert that her works (most of them under construction) are notable in their own right, nor significant or well-know, and they have been the subject of nothing more than the supplements of some newspapers noted for not being authoritative in the matter. Thousends of architects and other professionals are mentioned in thousends of half-page notes on said magazines, or blog posts, and that does not mean that their work is notable, well-known or significant. If she had received some prize, or some mention in a specialized (academic) magazine she could meet the criteria, for now, this is vanity, and plain spam of her firm. Gorgonzola (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Subject is completely non-notable, and the article is an evident vanity page, made up mainly with her own CV. Sources cited are nothing more than 1.- anecdotic reviews of her office's architectural work in non especialized sources and newspaper's decoration magazines, 2.- written by herseef or as publicity for her firm, 3.- reference in "who's who" archives form professional lists. Her "distinticve" work are buildings under construction, and bar remodelations (come on!). I could go on... only 53 google hits (for comparison i myslef get 179), etc. delete it. Gorgonzola (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gorgonzola. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Resume. Gamaliel (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2008 (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.