Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Escoda

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. Just a somewhat editorial comment that the notability template is intended to flag articles that need to be looked at and either tagged for deletion or have the template removed. It is not intended to remain forever, as with any such template. Its presence doesn't 'solve' an issue, it highlights one. Anyways, there's a consensus to delete here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Escoda

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Certainly accomplished, but I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Was deprodded, and additional sourcing was added, however, none of that was in-depth either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Law, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while he’s clearly accomplished, I concur, I did my own search and I’m not seeing sourcing that is in depth, only casual mentions beyond his firm’s bio, and his publications, the significance of which isn’t established either. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete company lawyer is not terribly notable, rest is routine business stuff. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to keep the articleThe the criteria is for Wikipedia:Notability is "Thus, notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources.". I think there are several reliable sources and independent from the subject that enable a objective verification:

as a university teacher (web and news of the CEU San Pablo University, Complutense University of Madrid,...),
as a legal scholar (Dialnet database, Dykinson publishers, Bosh publishers, ...),
as a lawyer (Spanish National Institute of Cybersecurity database and news, legal newspapers as ConfiLegal, ...).

Some of the sources are not deep enough. I agree. Could be. But that is precisely what the {{n-tability|1=Biographies}} template is for. The article has twenty references. If they aren't deep enough, that's usually fixed with that template. No need to delete the article.

The article refers to a Spanish lawyer and businessman. He is not a person like an actor or a singer. His references are legal, business and Spanish newspapers.

There are many references. They may not be very deep. But for that, the {{n-tability|1=Biographies}} template has already been posted. There is no need to delete it. If not, Wikipedia would run out of articles of this type.

There are many articles related to computer businesspeople, for example, that have almost no references. But that is fixed with the {{n-tability|1=Biographies}} template, not deleting them. For example, Dan Engel, Gary Bradski, Craig Mundie, ...

I de not think the article should be deleted. It would be enough to leave the {{n-tability|1=Biographies}} template as a warning.

what is the n-tability template? Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Specifically, none of the reasons in the long post above indicate notability. Certainly not WP:ACADEMIC, as the subject's publication record is very modest. As for a lawyer being registered as a lawyer, that is required. So none of that establishes any notability. Jeppiz (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. I only see blog posts and corporate websites but nothing that indicates SIGCOV. Also clearly doesnt pass WP:NPROF. --hroest 13:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.