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. The consensus is that the topic lacks the sources needed to satisfy WP:V. Deor (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Escobar[edit]

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

Probable hoax. If this were true (unsolved disappearance leading to disclosures that helped to prompt a House of Representatives bill) there would surely be some trace on-line, but I can find nothing relevant except obvious mirrors (including this "book"). In any case, fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:V. Vrac (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with User:Vrac. Can't verify. NickCT (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- before weighing in here I complied with WP:BEFORE, found some references that were not mirrors of this article, and I am convinced this article is not a hoax. The first reference I found and included dates back to 2006, when the article was started. By itself it is not enough to measure up to today's standards of notability. But I don't doubt that there would have been sufficient references available in 2006 to measure up to the notability standards of 2006. So any suggestions that this article is an instance of vandalism should be withdrawn.
I won't weigh in with a keep, delete or redirect opinion without looking more thoroughly for references. Geo Swan (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ohmynews is a "citizens" journalism site, making it an unreliable source. The article in ohmynews links to this wikipedia article when mentioning Victor Escobar which is circular sourcing. What are the other sources you found that you don't think are mirrors? Vrac (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the OhmyNews article can't be considered an independent source, because it is dated a month after the WP article was posted, and links to it, so it seems it was sourced from Wikipedia. In fact the whole OhmyNews article seems quite strongly Wikipedia-based, owing a good deal to this then-current version of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation article. We need something dated before October 2006, such as a reference from the "exposure that came through the unsolved case of Victor Escobar" in the 1999 investigation. JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it exceedingly unlikely that such a notable event as this would get no Google Books hits. Shii (tock) 05:37, 7 January 2015 (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.