Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yosimar Reyes (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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yosimar Reyes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Re-creation of an article previously deleted via AfD, which does not address the concerns that prompted the previous deletion; namely, notability and promotional tone. This version is sufficiently different from the deleted version that I felt uncomfortable deleting it via CSD G4, but the subject of the article still does not meet our criteria for inclusion. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Query - Hello all, I was wodering how I can fix this, so it will not be taken down? I would really appreciate the help. Puliguti (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  05:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  05:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  05:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep - but even then, only just. I couldn't make sense of the references so I went and cleaned them up a bit. Many of them are by the subject, rather than about the subject, which is obviously a problem for notability. There are a couple of sources that are probably okay, like the one from the San Francisco Gate and this from The Bottom Line. He's also been featured on some newspaper-affiliated podcasts like this one. Some of that has been produced since the last AFD. All up, there's probably enough there for me... but only just. I can certainly see how it might not be enough for others and won't campaign against deletion if there's consensus for it - I think the nominator was well within the bounds of reasonableness bringing it here. And I agree it needs major work if it were to stay. Stalwart 111  05:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * New Information has been added - Hello Wiki-Administrators, I hope you all have taken note of my edits. I have looked over your concerns and therefore I have added 3 new links. Two of the links connect Mr. Reyes to universities that he has spoken at in the past, while the third link connects him to a course taught at Columbia University. I hope this new information can add some clarity to Mr. Reyes' notability. Please let me know, what else can be added or removed from the actual entry to maintaing the entry alive. Thank you all for your consideration and time. Puliguti (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject appears to have receive significant coverage from one non-primary reliable source the San Jose Mercury News, but outside of that the subject has only received passing mention from reliable sources, and one significant coverage IMHO does not make notability. Therefore I have to say that the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and that it is too soon for the subject to be considered notable at this point.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Tiny mention on Highbeam, nothing worth posting sadly. Other mentions push towards GNG. Another? Mercury News one. . So I'm going to go for keep. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. Currently a self-published poet who has received a little recognition, but not yet enough for notability. I added the San Jose Mercury News reference to the article, because it does provide significant coverage in an independent reliable source, but GNG requires MULTIPLE such coverage and I couldn't find anything else. @Puliguti, if a few more such sources turn up in future years the article could be recreated, but you should study WP:42 to see what kind of coverage is required. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment An alternative to deletion would be to userfy it to User:Puliguti, if they want it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep -- I found some academic references, I think with the San Jose Mercury News, an academic article about art responding to the DREAM Act, and some lesser mentions and documentaries this squeaks by. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, Jodi. It's a passing mention in a minor journal, and doesn't get him over the top IMO. I do think it's possible that more sources will be forthcoming in the future; that's why I suggested userfying it - preserving it in somebody's userspace until there is enough material to substantiate notability. If Puliguti does not want it, would you want it to be put in your namespace for later development? Note to closing administrator: if neither of these users wants it, you could userfy it to me. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any ongoing interest in the article, it would be great if you'd userfy it. So far as you say, it's passing mentions -- not just in that journal but also mentioned briefly in Gay Latino Studies: A Critical Reader, as well as in a master's thesis. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I think on balance the references are sufficient to show notability, when all considered together, though any single individual one would not be by itself individually sufficient.  DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 20 June 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.