Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kike San Martín

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. I agree with Hoary that the article must be radically revised to meet WP:NPOV. However there are sufficient sources to meet the GNG and consensus below points to keep. Protonk (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kike San Martín[edit]

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

Non notable photographer Diego Grez (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Photographers are hardly ever notable, but in this case, he certainly supports the notability claim. Photos for music CD artworks, a role in talk shows, judge of the latin grammy awards. On the other hand, it has a promotional tone here and there, but that may be fixed. Cambalachero (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Click footnotes 1, 2, and 3 showing in the article. This never should have been brought to AfD. San Martîn is the subject of multiple, independent, substantial pieces of published coverage. Carrite (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largely per Carrite. While I'm not 100% sure that the FF Media source isn't largely push-PR, the other two articles look reputable/solid enough, which reaches (in my estimation) WP:GNG by a nose. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the references seem notable to me. Wxidea (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Promotional flatus. If it's kept, it needs to be radically revised. -- Hoary (talk) 10:38, 12 July 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.