Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy Rodriguez

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Rodriguez

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

Non-notable individual journalist and fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, No indication that subject meets notability. Many of the links provided are either dead or turn up promotional coverage, but nothing else significant. Simply being a ex journalist and current academic doesn't rise to inclusion in encyclopedic content The Columbian Journalism Librarian (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Doesn't pass WP:JOURNALIST and page exists to to be largely self promotional. The Columbian Journalism Librarian (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC) the nominator does not vote, the nomination itself is the delete argument Atlantic306 (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Article was obviously promotional from the start, it hasn't materially improved since, and it's regrettable that it took nine years for anyone to take this to deletion. No evidence this meets the GNG, and there's no notability guideline this does meet. Ravenswing 11:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's subject, who was also its creator, has requested via VRTS ticket # 2017070810003492 that the article be deleted. KDS4444 (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2017 (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.