Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramon Sean Rivas

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. So Why 07:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Sean Rivas[edit]

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

Hello. This article is borderline WP:CSD A7 and WP:CSD G4 as Ramon Rivas (audio engineer) was deleted on 25 February 2017 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramon Rivas (audio engineer). Ramon Rivas is much certainly a gifted professional working in the shadows of giants, but neither the article content nor its sources show any sign of notability. To be clear I have not done much WP:BEFORE. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the creator of this article, I would have to agree that the article does borderline on general notability, but no independent reliable sources exist covering the subject in detail. So for the time being, it does not need its own article space. NaturalSelection (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject does have independent sources. The creator of this article was only focused on engineering and excluded the subject as a hip hop recording artist and record producer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Delete. The sources are all first-party, non-WP:RS, and/or passing mentions. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the nom's rationale, as well as searches not turning up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per RoySmith, my assessment of the sources is the same. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:50, 26 July 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.