Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge A. Ruiz

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge A. Ruiz[edit]

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

All the3rd party refs are about a program he is connected with, not about him -- and I do not even see any 3rd party RS that he is the person who initiated it,as claimed in the article DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering the number of 3rd party sources in the article, I would have guessed that sources about the subject would have been easy to find, but this is not the case. I cannot find evidence of substantive coverage in independent sources. Vanamonde (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing actually substantiating his own notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 16:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable corporate executive with a purely promotional article. Sources do not suggest independent notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2016 (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.