Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/César Ramírez (torcedor)

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. Secret ^account 01:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

César Ramírez (torcedor)[edit]

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

Completing nomination for 207.119.152.214, whose rationale was posted at the article's talk page and is included verbatim below. The same concern seems to have been raised in 2008, with 8 edits in the 5 years since (none of them adding sources). My own search comes up with nothing. On the merits, no recommendation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion because the subject does not meet notability guidelines. The subject is mentioned only in passing in the included article. A search of the web reveals no other sources of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.152.214 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the LA Times article listed in the article does not feature Ramirez as the primary subject, it is much more than a passing mention as claimed in the nomination; the material on Ramirez appears to take up about one third of the article. The local (Las Vegas) CBS affiliate also did this story on him. In total though, I don't think that is sufficient to meet inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. The two available notes are useful in terms of notability but not enough to justify a WP:BLP, and I can't find anything else. — Frankie (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2013 (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.