Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Aguilar

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Aguilar

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

article created and written entirely by subject in direct violation of WP:AUTO autobiography rules, clear conflict of interest SaltLakeMists (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
Article created and written by two accounts belonging to the article subject, in direct violation of Wikipedia autobiography rules WP:AUTO
users previously pointed this out in article talk page
article subject responded in the talk page taking ownership of the edits and writing
user accounts Rebeccaaguilar50 and Rebecca Aguilar were both used to only create, write, and edit this article

subject has used their accounts to add themselves in other Wikipedia lists

comments in talk page suggest there may be differing viewpoints on the facts surrounding some of the main topics in the article, calling into question the contents

SaltLakeMists (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable television presenter, sources used are blogs and sites related to the person. I can't find any we can use either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, News media, and Texas. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SaltLakeMists (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator has no or few edits other than those related to this AfD. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but why does that matter? If the reasons are good (and to my mind they are), who cares what edits the nominator has done? Delete. Athel cb (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it's a red-flag. we see it all too often here Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems clear:

Fails WP:GNG but most importantly the entire article is a clear WP:COI, fails WP:AUTO, entire article was written by subject

Subject admits to this in Talk page and uses multiple accounts SaltLakeMists (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: references #6, #9, #10, and #11 collectively amount to SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources are promo and brief routine news, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. BEFORE only found promo materials. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 16:58, 19 May 2023 (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.