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. Rlendog (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge A. del Calvo[edit]

Jorge A. del Calvo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This entry has been flagged as having been written "like an advertisement" for over a year and a half. Much of it is unreferenced. Because this is a biography of a successful professional of modest public profile, having a tagged article for such a long time is unfortunate. A representative associated with the subject has politely requested removal, a factor that I think further tips the balance in favor of a deletion at this time, without prejudice against an independent re-creation if warranted in the future, though that seems unlikely. Under the principles and spirit of WP:BLP, we ought to be particularly concerned about biographies that we seem unable to properly improve/maintain, due to a general lack of verifiable information or interest in the subject by editors. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm the only editor (besides the SPA who originated the article) to have done real work to save this article. Subject, while not so unnotable that his entry inherently demands deletion, is not so notable that he demands inclusion. Had this article been important or good, I would likely be arguing against deletion, but it seems unlikely that a good article will be generated from this anytime soon, so we are doing no real damage to Wikipedia by acceding to the request. A standard deletion without salting will allow anyone who is motivated to create a good article to do so here (or even a weak article should some rise in the subject's notability demand it, as a weak article on a more notable subject is apt to attract more attention toward improving it.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I believe a reasonable case could be made that the subject of this biography meets our guidelines for inclusion. However, since the subject currently resides within the subjective grey area between inclusion and exclusion, Wikipedia will not suffer from honoring the request for exclusion mentioned in the nomination. ("A representative associated with the subject has politely requested removal.") Peacock (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously in the "gray area", i couldnt find any significant references outside his bio at law firm. I strongly support removing unreferenced BLP info, and in this case, the whole article qualifies. also agree it doesnt need to be salted, no sign he couldnt be given an article in the future, subject is not obviously abusing the system to justify salting. Reminder: if decided as delete, check the "what links here" to be sure his name isnt a redlink on a list somewhere w/o refs. (of course, he may properly belong on a list somewhere, with his bio as a ref)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2012 (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.