Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriela Sepúlveda

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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Sepúlveda[edit]

[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)

Does not meet WP:NSINGER. Likely created as advertisement by single-purpose account. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The nominator may be correct about a single-purpose account, and the article is bloated with unnecessary information about the singer's minor media appearances and personal life. However she did get some reliable media coverage in the Hispanic and multilingual communities, helping with criteria #1 and #7 at WP:NSINGER. The singer has achieved basic notability but this article certainly needs to be pared down to relevant facts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reference 2 in the article and others, so passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If all this bureaucracy is being caused by my "Weak Keep" vote above, just consider it KEEP and move on already. The singer has at least a little reliable media coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After doing a WP:BEFORE search as well as looking over provided sources it appears the subject receives SIGCOV in reliable sources. May not pass the SNG (WP:NSINGER) but passes the basic notability guideline for inclusion (WP:N. Note: The Forbes article would be considered RS had it been written by a staff member but I did not count it as RS due to it being written by a contributor. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 22:04, 8 January 2021 (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.