Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel de la Rocha Vázquez

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. Missvain (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel de la Rocha Vázquez[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

promotional bio of minor politician--no elected offices or cabinet rank. The refs seem promotional of mere notices DGG ( talk ) 13:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All content is backed up by several reliable third-party sources, intellectually independent of each other: La Información, Cinco Días, Expansión, El Español, El Periódico and RTVE (with the possible exception if we want to be picky of #4, published by a third-party independent source (El Español) but a CV nonetheless, although the content backed up by that source can be verified by the rest of sources, it's just the former provides chronology. Thus "secondary" sources for Wikipedia purposes, establishing a case for WP:BASIC as in "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". As for responsibilities, neither an executive role at the governing body of a major political party (Secretary of Economy) nor being appointed member to the Cabinet Office of the head of government of a country are indeed included in WP:NPOL, but then again, the article complies to WP:BASIC. Complying to WP:BASIC and not complying to WP:NPOL seems to be rather routine in Wikipedia at least for articles of US policy wonks (either in "national party committees" or "cabinet offices"). Care to inform why is it "promotional"?--Asqueladd (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is not that people are exempted from WP:NPOL just because they can show a handful of sources — especially since some of the article's seven footnotes just glancingly namecheck his existence in passing, and aren't substantively about him. You need a lot more sources than this to actually get him a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to hold an NPOL-passing role. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-11 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third times the charm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally marked this article as reviewed, but that was due to misunderstanding his current role in the government, thinking that the department of economic affairs was a cabinet-level position. It isn't, so therefore he doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Kolma8 (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2020 (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.