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. The discussion about possibly renaming or redirecting can certainly continue on the talkpage. J04n(talk page) 13:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Beniquez

[edit]

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

There is no evidence here whatsoever that he is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Though I welcome evidence I'm wrong? Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - there are plentiful Spanish news sources relating to this young man's pursuit in the courts of his alleged biological father the Pentecostal church leader Teófilo Vargas Seín. The article's notability will be evidently be affected by the forthcoming DNA result. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mita Congregation. For now, Beniquez is "notable" for just one circumstance, namely his lawsuit against his alleged biological father. That lawsuit is discussed at Mita Congregation, and any additional content about the lawsuit can be added there. WP:ONEEVENT applies; separate article is not justified. --Orlady (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT doesn't mean that we can't have a separate article, it means that the article should focus on the event not the person, which this article does. Diego (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: At this point, there is no consensus, let us discuss further what to do

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PAGEDECIDE and rename to "Samuel Beniquez adoption lawsuit" or similar. The lawsuit *is* notable and merits an article; merging everything here would be undue weight at Mita Congregation, so it's better to have a separate article about the lawsuit. Diego (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Diego Moya's argument. This lawsuit and the paternity is a central issue affecting the already notable Mita religion. I do not agree that it would be undue weight to merge, but I think it is not a povfork to have it separate either. Additionally, I think it meets notability prima facie for BLPs: there is widespread media coverage of Beniquez in the mainstream press.--Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The lawsuit and paternity issue are already covered in the article Mita Congregation, which is the article about the Mita religion. That is also the article where this man's alleged biological father is covered. The only content in this article that is not currently in the Mita Congregation article is promotional content about Mr. Beníquez, including photographs of him and information about his public relations career. That content is not related to the "one event" that is deemed to be notable. Wikipedia does not advertise the careers of otherwise non-notable people who are parties to notable paternity lawsuits. --Orlady (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different debate than deletion. There are three things here: 1) Paternity lawsuit 2) Biographies involved 3) Article quality. The first two we can discuss here, the other we cannot. A bad quality, promotional BLP can be kept and then edited to fit a more appropriate standard. As I said, I do not oppose merger, but I am not sure Beniquez is only notable for this event, as it seems he was a well known PR professional before these news broke. So the issues need to be treated separately. --Cerejota (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge & redirect" or just "redirect" to another article is a valid outcome of a deletion discussion. As I stated in my comment earlier, Beniquez is "notable" for just one circumstance, namely his lawsuit against his alleged biological father. You may consider him a "well known PR professional", but the article has no third-party coverage about his professional work, nor any other aspect of his biography outside of the lawsuit. Furthermore, being a successful public relations agent does not qualify as notable under WP:BIO. --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2013 (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.