Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmundo Alarcon

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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edmundo Alarcon

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

To me this article appears to just be one big promotional puff-piece that fails WP:GNG. The subject has been quoted in a newspaper article about Mormons, has worked as a guide for Disney, and has had a very minor role in a film. I removed some of the extreme cases of puffery from the article, but it's still problematic. Some of the included references have been posts by the subject in website comment threads and the like. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry I tagged this for CSD about the same time you AfD'd it Gbawden (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's alright—I considered doing that as well but given the length of the article, I thought the creator might appreciate a full discussion on it. I have no objection to a speedy deletion, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom - nothing in there is notable Gbawden (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see the page creator deleted the AfD tag. Possible COI as the user is ‎FabianaAlarcon2000 Gbawden (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should be speedy deleted, this is a backup incase it is not. Op47 (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient evidence of notability. -- The Anome (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - No notability. Reads like a resume. AlanS (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's certainly been around, but I can't see anything that merits a place in an encyclopaedia. What is there is seems puffed up to seem important, and doesn't even seem important then. Peridon (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete changing my vote to delete per other rationales and after looking into it further. There's not much to the LA Times article and the others don't cover him in any useful detail. ~~and improve. The LA Times articles seems to cover him in detail. The article itself is junk and needs to be stubbed and rewritten but he seems to satisfy GNG.~~ Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & SALT — I tried to cleanup the article but after getting part way into it, especially after evaluating the supposed refs, and looking on the internet for additional ones to support the claims being made, I found that there was no way that the subject of this article could currently met the notability requirements for biographies of living people, and was contemplating doing the AfD nomination myself. The LA Times article is the only real coverage of this person, and it is really trivial: there was nothing special said about Alarcon, and no indication that he is important or notable is found in that article. The whole point of the article was that he was just one of thousands-upon-thousands of other missionaries that are churned thru the LDS Missionary Training Center.

I suggest wp:SALT because this article is already the fifth iteration (fourth recreation) of an article on this subject, as the other four were speedy'd (see these notifications), and the editor(s) interested in adding this article have demonstrated both a persistence in recreating it, and (so far) a lack of understanding of WP guidelines and criteria. Any attempt of recreating this article should be required to go thru either a formal deletion review or a formal AfC submission. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally:

If the The Australian had mentioned a surname, and not just the given name, it might be usable, but there is no reasonable way at this time to connect the "Edmundo" mentioned in that article with Alarcon
The jimhillmedia.com mention of an "Edmundo" without a surname also cannot reasonably be connected to Alarcon
There is also no reasonable way to connect the "Edmundo Alarcon" mentioned in the 1974 Ensign article, as that relationship is not otherwise currently established in a reliable source, and I couldn't find any reliably referenced connection when I looked for one. Also notability is not inherited.
The calodges.org ref that Alarcon became a Fellow Craft does support part of Freemason claims, but doesn't support Alarcon's overall notability
The wrestling claims are not reasonably supported, but should be the easiest to do so out of all of the other claims, as any significant form of wrestling is highly promoted and publicised. An attempt was made with the YouTube video, but that is not a usable source, nor does it help establish notability, but it could be used as an External Link
The guestofaguest.com photo gallery is not a usable source, nor does it help establish notibility, but it could be used as an External Link.
Being documented in IMDb as "Thug #4" in Bullet (2014 film) doesn't help support notability; it's just a single walk-on role (also known as a bit part), and while it likely was exciting to Alarcon, his family & friends, it's really no big deal as far as movie roles go.

Summary: there are no existing references on the article that substantiates any degree of notability, notoriety, or fame. I wish this young man well, and hope that in the future he will have that opportunity (if he wishes), but it's just not anywhere close to being there right now. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 16:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent move to draftspace & back to articlespace, I'd suggest SALTing Draft:Edmundo Alarcon too. -- ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 19:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the subject is notable enough for an article then it would be best to start fresh rather than use this overly promotional writing as a basis. Chillum 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to meeting Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - in an apparent bid to save the article, JulieAnnMoore2000 (talk · contribs) has moved the article to draft:Edmundo Alarcon. I do not feel this is appropriate while the AfD is active, and ask that an admin both undo this move and warn the user. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 18:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I undid the move. I still would like to have an admin consider warning/sanctioning user:JulieAnnMoore2000. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 18:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and has far too much Citation needed to suggest it would be adequately sourced even if he was notable. —Frosty ☃ 00:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being interviewed in an LA Times article, and appearing in a very minor role in a film does not make someone notable. Nothing else that has been in the article even comes vaguely close to that. Part of me wonders if this article is a result of people ignoring the policy to not create articles on themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we delete this per WP:SNOW? Op47 (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per discussion above. AAA3AAA (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2014 (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.