Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Estrella

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. JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Estrella[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements of WP:PEOPLE - does not have coverage in reliable third-party sources. PK T(alk) 22:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - related to John Estrella, whose article I have also nominated for deletion.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 22:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Nomination Hello, I don't agree that deletion is necessary. The subject is an established professional in her field, as well as a author. Her contribution to the Scouts Canada is also significant, and can be proven with further references. Instead of deletion, I think an expanding of the references given is better suited. Thanks! Bogdan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan247 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read WikiPedia's guidelines for notability. Find and reference reliable third-party publications where she has been profiled, and you might make your case. Unfortunately, I doubt such references exist. PK T(alk) 23:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, PKT, I will collect some additional sources to support the notability of the article.Bogdan247 (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a vanity entry, with no third-party references used as citations, that is newspapers, journals etc. Those sourced from organisations with which the individual is affiliated are not sufficient. Mind matrix 00:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of third-party RS sources. The Interior (Talk) 01:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out an independent source mentioning the subject: Shroff Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd., a leading academic and information technology publisher in India distributes her popular software testing book along with books from O'Reilly & Associates, Packt Publishing, Mike Murach & Associates, Rampant TechPress, Pragmatic Bookshelf, IBM Redbooks, MC Press, Discovery Press, etc. http://www.shroffpublishers.com/detail.aspx?cat=0&title=2092 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan247 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of several related articles created by Bogdan247, one which has been PRODded and another up at AfD. Having authored a book does not count as a reliable source attesting to the subject's notability; if so, I'd qualify for an article myself. It is not enough to find items with her name on it; to qualify under the GNG, there must be reliable, third party, independent sources that describe the subject in "significant detail," such as articles in major newspapers or magazines. I can't find any, myself. [1] Ravenswing 21:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her one book is out from Trafford, a vanity press. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:SPS. Qworty (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. She is the co-author of a self-published book for which I can find not independent reliable critical review. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2011 (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.