Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orlando Ortega-Medina

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. Kurykh (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Ortega-Medina[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and lawyer, with no genuinely strong claim to notability under our inclusion criteria for either occupation. This is based almost entirely on primary sources, with very little evidence of any reliable source coverage that's substantively about him -- the few things here that actually count as reliable sources just briefly quote him giving soundbite about a topic, rather than actually having him as their subject. I also strongly suspect a paid-editing conflict of interest here, as the creator's username is "ALMPR" (which corresponds to the name of a public relations firm in California.) As always, neither writers nor lawyers are automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because their work exists; they must be shown as the subject of enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG, but nothing like that has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to discuss the Orlando Ortega-Medina article to clarify that I do not work for a PR agency called ALMPR in California, I am based in London in the UK. I wanted to ask if there was something wrong with the post in terms of references and citations now? Citations have been included throughout the biography of Orlando, so please do let me know what further we could do? Would really like to be able to keep this alive if possible. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALMPR (talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In order to support notability, citations in a Wikipedia article need to be to reliable source coverage about him in media. Coverage of other things which merely happens to mention his name one time in the process (e.g. [1]) does not support that he's notable enough for an article; coverage of other things in which he's quoted giving soundbite (e.g. [2]) does not support that he's notable enough for an article. His own self-published website does not support notability. Corporate press releases do not support notability. YouTube videos do not support notability. His profiles on the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with do not support notability. Event calendar listings do not support notability. Only certain specific types of sourcing — media coverage which is about him — count as notability-building references, and exactly zero of the sources you've used in this article are actually hitting the target. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer and writer with no significant impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2017 (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.