Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:George Cervantes

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:George Cervantes

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Sometimes we reach a point where the continued massaging of a draft which is a hopeless case should be stopped. Cervantes has no notability in a Wikipedia sense. He may, at some unspecified future date, generate some. At that point let us have a good new draft. Until then the work is pointless. Let us call a halt to it, please

It is worth referring to Articles for deletion/George Cervantes. I have lost track entirely of the similarities and differences between the draft and the deleted mainspace article, and I do not have admin goggles. Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 15:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Tim - I didn't submit the page for review. I was just adding new information that my assistant provided to me. I just saw a comment that really got to me because he took his own personal views on Cervantes. His own personal opinion shoudln't matter when making an executive decision such as editing or approving a page. I was just adding new content that my assistant provided me today and then she notified me that someone made a personal comment about Cervantes. I was told to continue working on the page without clicking the "submit for review" button and that's exactly what I have been doing. Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Tim - If you want to go ahead and delete, then I will accept it. I am not getting payment or anything from Cervantes. I trust your professional advice. Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Attorney Goldstein II IT is not my desire to delete it. I have nominated it. There will one a discussion for a reasonable period until consensus is reached. There is more than one key on the deletion trigger, something which pleases me a lot Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 16:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I was told to work on the draft at my own speed and that's exaclty what I have been doing, but that guy keeps making personal remarks towards Cervantes and that will not be accepted and shoudldn't be accepted here on Wikipedia. Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not given any personal opinions on Cervantes, I would not be so presumptuous, please don’t suggest that I have. Theroadislong (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Attorney Goldstein II I will keep any personal remarks out of this. I have no interest in anything other than article quality and time spent doing things that are not likely to be productive. I mean this for you as well as for Wikipedia editors. I know that I have been unable to find any sources that meet our needs for Cervantes. For the avoidance of doubt this is what we need:
 * "For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today."
 * If you can find three such references then there is a probability that Cervantes warrants an article. If you cannot then he certainly does not. When you can it is likely that he will.
 * The work and time issue is important. You will recognise that doing the same thing one has always done and expecting different results is a path no-one should follow. I am trying to save you from that path, and also to save Cervantes the obvious embarrassment of people saying repeatedly that, in a Wikipedia sense, he is not notable. I recognise that he has notability for those who like and love him and for those who are impressed with his work. Wikipedia, though, requires he passes WP:BIO, which is a tough thing to do, and something that I View him as not yet achieving. It's a different take on 'notability'. I have looked for sources myself and failed. We call this WP:BEFORE.
 * I stand by what I have said in the nomination. Paraphrased, it means "Do the work when he is notable. Until then simply stop." Assuming you are an attorney (rather than it being a user name, I do not say that to be in any way disparaging) you will recognise that as advice you will give your clients from time to time. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 16:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Cervantes wants consumers to use Yelp to gauge the reputation of the company " we have zero interest in what Cervantes wants! Theroadislong (talk) 14:07, 17


 * That's your personal views on Cervantes...correct? So, you did give you personal opinion and views on Cervantes. Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I got that from the comment you left on the draft. Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is NOT a personal opinion, "We" = Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Attorney Goldstein II That sentiment is expressed accurately and all reviewers understand it. There is a lesson for us all here in phrasing, though. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 16:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep There is no harm in others working on this to establish notability, though I find it rather intimidating that his attorney has been drawn in to edit? Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Theroadislong I think it may have been a poor choice of user name, whether Corky Goldstein be a real life attorney or no. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 17:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a real life Corky Goldstein attorney, so I am keeping well away from now on. Theroadislong (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Different full name, and seemingly the wrong state, though, making me strongly suspect this is someone's delusions of grandeur based on a name he saw in an ad somewhere. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 21:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Contributors to this discussion should read Sockpuppet investigations/Marcorubiocali please, and draw whatever conclusions they deem appropriate from it Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 21:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In light of Sockpuppet investigations/Marcorubiocali, keep, but only to keep future sox out of mainspace. Better the devil you know. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 21:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This hasn't reached the point where keeping it in draftspace is both an unreasonable time sink and an ineffective finger plugging up the dam. I'm also somewhat sceptical that Cervantes' lawyer would come near a country mile of this due to ethical issues. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 05:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - As I said previously concerning Cervantes, I think it is likely that Cervantes is biographically notable, but that his flack is acting as a hindrance rather than a help. This draft is not being tendentiously resubmitted, and there is no other reason why it needs to be deleted.  It might be a good idea to ECP-protect it to prevent sockpuppets from editing it, but that is a different issue.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon Requested just now. Good suggestion  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 11:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it isn't just his flack that's the issue. I've never been able to find anything resembling usable sources, and I've looked multiple times (string: "george cervantes" matchmaker). I'm willing to buy that it's possible sources will show up at some point; they just aren't yet a thing. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 15:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Discuss at Draft talk:George Cervantes, not here.  Consider WP:DUD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2021 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.