Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mari Rodriguez Ichaso

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mari Rodriguez Ichaso[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)

Some trivial coverage from CNN but notability is not inherited. It's been tagged for approximately a decade. Coverage of Ichaso is patchy at best. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added some recent articles that I think get her over the hurdle. The article definitely needs a rewrite. Patapsco913 (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I'm probably looking at the sources enhanced post-AFD but I see two sources there with medium length coverage. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Switched mine due to more detailed analysis of sources by Ravenswing and others below. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For my part, I actually read the new sources proffered. One is an interview of the subject, which cannot bolster the notability of the subject. The second is an extensive piece by CNN, which would certainly count as a reliable source ... if it wasn't about her being hired by CNN, and thus blatantly primary. Of the two sources already in the article, they both are the exact same thing: a three-sentence long profile by an organization of which she is a member. 0+0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 06:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when the main source on someone is from their employer we lack enough secondary source coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and points above
Comment. I'm not sure if she passes the notability bar for WP:NARTIST, but I believe that her 1999 documentary Marcadas por el Paraiso / Branded by Paradise is notable. pburka (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much in the way of coverage. scope_creep^Talk 18:00, 4 August 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.