Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Blandon

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 keep. Courcelles 19:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Blandon[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines - cannot find reliable third-party sources. ItsZippy (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article makes a strong assertion of notability, and a Google News Archive search shows that many Spanish language sources exist. I can't evaluate these sources very well since my ability to read Spanish is poor at best. However, the presumption that good sources exist in Spanish is high, unless the nominator claims that the article is a hoax. Please remember that this is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Google news result has lots of Roberto Blandons in the result which are spurious, but picking through Spansih language ones turns up stuff like this short article which indicates he is acting in a soap opera with high ratings. Note that he is the primary subject of this article. That's the best I could make of it based on machine translation. There's more and somebody proficient in Spanish could make his or her way through the material much better. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The news results are indeed very good in terms of notability. These two [1] [2] focus directly on him, and these [3] [4] [5] on some of his works, but the mention is more than passing — frankie (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the nominator failed to find sources, others have easily done so. Subject meets WP:ENT, WP:GNG and thus WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 30 August 2011 (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.