Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damian Fernandez Lamela

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. Mkdw ^talk 01:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Fernandez Lamela[edit]

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

There is no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. Not only are the sources not independent, but several of them don't even mention Damian Fernandez Lamela, and others barely mention him, such as including his name in a list. The results of a Google search for his name start with Linkedin and this Wikipedia article, and then go on to such things as a blogspot page that merely mentions him in passing, pages that merely include his name in a list, other listings pages giving bare biographical details, about.me/fernandezlamela/collections, a page entitled "Damian fernandez lamela - names of cute babys" (which is as trivial, and as little related to him, as one would guess from the title), etc etc. No sign of significant coverage in any source of any kind. (Note: A PROD was removed by an IP editor.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Effectively a CV of a man with a job. The nearest to a claim of notability might be the claim that he wrote a book which was one of the top 5 sellers of its type in one particular bookshop, but even that is unsubstantiated and would be of dubious notability even if verified. Fails biographical notability criteria. (A paragraph of the article text matches the summary here so if the article survives, it needs WP:COPYVIO pruning.) AllyD (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm shocked, shocked that a personal CV created by a wp:SPA fails wp:Bio. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, fails WP:ACADEMIC, fails WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Neonchameleon I'm shocked that a marketing specialist's article displays more puffery than evidence of scholarly impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 16 December 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.