Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yosimar Reyes


 * 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. v/r - TP 18:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yosimar Reyes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Notability not asserted. The links provided don't help either; none of the references would indicate this poet should be notable enough for his article. Click on them to see. &theta;v&xi;r    mag&xi;   spellbook 06:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. Not only do the links not establish notability, there are two links from Lexis Nexus that purport to contain a San Jose Mercury News article - however, only lead to a search page thereon.  I see some peacockishness, but that is not a reason to delete unto itself - the unreliable sources are. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 05:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this guy is marginal at best, but I found enough links pointing to the SJ Mercury site to convince me that the article is simply expired, it was there at one point. Various sites had excerpts or summaries of it. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not think the material is sufficient for notability . The over-expansive article is also a concern, and very close to G11.  DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 28 June 2012 (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.