Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Bezares Garrido

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 redirect to Union, Progress and Democracy. A Train^talk 07:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Bezares Garrido

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

Seems to fail WP:NPOL. Spokesperson for a smaller party, not holding public office, maybe a personal PR effort Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Union, Progress and Democracy. No evidence of independent notability and all the WP:RS are really about the party. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect per Eggishorn would also be acceptable, though I'm more inclined to just delete.) Being a spokesperson for a political party can be enough for inclusion if the person is reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but it's not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — and the sources here aren't cutting it per GNG, either, as out of the five sources I can actually see none are substantive: three are just blurbs, and the other two are Q&A interviews in which he's the interviewee and not the subject. None of those are notability-assisting sources, so I don't have high hopes that the two deadlinks I can't see are any better. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Union, Progress and Democracy (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Retaining the history is useful to facilitate a very selective merge or to allow easy undoing of the redirect if new sources surface.
Cunard (talk) 19:26, 15 October 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.