Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelo Villagomez

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. Shimeru 03:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Villagomez

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

Minor blogger lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance to support "non-trivial" coverage. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object, http://www.google.com/search?q=angelo+villagomez+saipan Subject appears in newspapers and other sources. Popular last name should not be negative factor in deciding GHits / GNEWS Tetricus (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of the 173 hits, most are blog hits that do not meet the criteria in WP:RS for inclusion. The rest are "trivial" mentions of his name. I am not sure what you mean by the statement, "[A] Popular last name should not be negative factor in deciding GHits/GNEWS." ttonyb (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the hits are from a newspaper, www.saipantribune.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.111.162 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hardly, try only 4. ttonyb (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – more like 300 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.185.77 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That is rather impossible since for the search --> "angelo villagomez" saipan <--, there are only 175 Google hits. Regardless, they are trivial in nature. ttonyb (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage does [not] appear to originate in sources deemed reliable, thus subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.--Pink Bull 19:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. You contradict yourself in that comment. If the sources are reliable, the subject meets the guidelines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.162.221 (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now amended my comment consistent with my intention. Thanks for pointing that out.--Pink Bull 22:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are New York Times and MSNBC not reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.162.221 (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It is not that they are not reliable, it is that the coverage of the individual is lacking. He has a brief quote in the articles about the subject of the articles. That is not coverage of the individual nor does being quoted talking about another subject make him notable. ttonyb (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To echo Tonyb1's point, Villagomez may have received somewhat significant coverage in sources not deemed reliable, but the coverage he has received in sources deemed reliable (like the NYT and MSNBC) have apparently been nothing more then off-hand mentions. Perhaps an article can be created on "Friends of the Monument" or on the general environmental situation in the Northern Mariana Islands. Then, perhaps information on Angelo Villagomez can be merged there, if deemed appropriate.--Pink Bull 01:16, 18 June 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.