Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Figueroa deportation case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure)Davey2010Talk 23:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Figueroa deportation case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:GNG. Seems to be written by an editor with a clear COI JMHamo (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep articles in The Star and The Globe and Mail show that this case has significance across Canada. For significance abroad, you just need to search for "José Figueroa" "deportación" and you will find articles in the USA and El Salvador. Passes WP:GNG hands down. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Event covered by articles in national newspapers indicates notability to me. I am unclear as to the relevance of WP:SINGLEEVENT: I think a biographical article on Jose Figueroa himself would fall foul of it, but I don't see how an article on the event for which he is notable can do. The fact that the article is substantially written by an editor with a COI is not to me a reason to delete it, though it might be a reason that it needs cleaning up. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:22, 27 April 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.