Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Agudelo

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Agudelo[edit]

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

Notability not established by reliable sources, with article lately being used for promotion, evidently by its subject. JNW (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely honest and open representation of Richard Agudelo and there is not one mistake in it. I would appreciate a proper unbiased review of the facts stated here. Many Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricagu (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Does not appear to be a notable artist, and article reads like a vanity piece. Not quite eligible for {{speedy}} deletion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is blatant ad copy, with its subject edit warring and refusing to discuss why several reams of advertising aren't appropriate. The first comment here, added by the article's author/subject, does not address the issues raised. Şłџğģő 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ricagu has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. Şłџğģő 22:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ricagu has had his 48-hour block restarted for sockpuppeting. Şłџğģő 20:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability seems peripheral. Sure, his photos have been used in some notable places, but it's incidental, as there is no evidence that the photos themselves were noteworthy. -- Atama頭 20:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Atama. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2010 (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.