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. See my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patryk Tracz SpinningSpark 18:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Solano

[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. The article has 18 sources, but the out of 6 I checked, 3 don't mention the subject, two do in passing, and one seems to have a broken link. The article is primarily based on sources discussion companies and business enterprises the subject was involved in, and is not even focused much on the subject in the body. It seems like a spam piece, through whether for the subject, product or a company, I am not sure. Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to pass any relevant notability requirements. PS. This article is shares almost all of the content with Patryk Tracz (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patryk Tracz) and Paul Campbell (American entrepreneur) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Campbell (American entrepreneur))... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, page maker here. I think merging them all to a page for "The Committee" would be a good option (maybe on the life in color page), using the same guideline used for bandmembers; I went ahead and made three new separate pages (similar to the original Lukasz Tracz one), just because I didn't predict the research would be so similar, but except Solano they turned out almost all the same. I do think all 4 independently pass the GNG for company founders (per if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability), so I wouldn't agree with deleting any info overall. Earflaps (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's detailed rationale. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted this debate due to there being no discussion here since the last relist, which was a week ago. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:31, 31 December 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.