Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastián Izquierdo

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastián Izquierdo

Sebastián Izquierdo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable individual, does not comply at all with WP:NPEOPLE. Although it contains some references from Chilean mainstream media, it seems to me a great effort has been made to make this individual look notable when he isn't. There are some references for his participation in controversial events, but most do not even mention Izquierdo. Some original research has been made, especially in the ideology section, since no book, no article, no paper, etc., has ever been published analyzing Izquierdo's thoughts. In fact, he has not even published an article, ever. Some references are Twitter and YouTube. Is he relevant enough as a YouTuber? I don't think so. Also fails WP:NPOL. Please also refer to the Spanish Wikipedia request for deletion, where there is unanimous support for its deletion for the same, previously exposed reasons. Bedivere (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, The article is forceful in attempting to present Izquierdo as notable. Relevant parts of this comment be better off in the article Far-right politics in Chile, where other personalities of this type can also be mentioned. Dentren | Talk 08:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has tons of foreign language references with inline citations. Given this fact, I am not seeing a strong argument for deletion without a much more detailed source analysis that addresses each reference individually.4meter4 (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 1 is unavailable (primary). Ref No. 2 is kind of reliable. Publimetro has taken a clear left wing stance and may be non neutral. Ref 3 to 5 are definitely not reliable, especially no. 5. In fact, this article relies heavily on El Universal, which is a sensationalist, definitely not reliable, blog (disguised as an online newspaper) which is run by Felipe Henriquez, who is a well known (not for good reasons) Twitter user and leftist "activist". Some references do not even exist, such as No. 11 (Zank You). Many references do not even mention Izquierdo: ref 8, 9, 10, 20, 21. There are some references that are "analyzed" by whoever added it (original research): ref 22, 36, 39. Bedivere (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any responses to Bedivere's source anaylsis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not gone through references in detail, but I have much like Bedivere also noted the quality of references is very poor. Dentren | Talk 10:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt to get further comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 18:35, 25 October 2021 (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.