Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas

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 keep‎. Procedural Keep. Please reconsider whether a bundled nomination is appropriate. It's unrealistic to expect participating editors to be able to thoughtfully review this many (48!) articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Vargas

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

User Kewf1988 created a bunch of Wikipedia pages for non-notable local officials and news anchors over a decade ago. None of these people have gotten much national news coverage or done anything worthy of a Wikipedia page. Doubt they satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. As you can tell by this person's talk page, a lot of pages they created have already been deleted. Full list of pages nominated:

BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2023 (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/2023 December 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Journalism, Radio, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Sparse mentions in recent news indeed. Found a couple of hits here and here where he's supposed to one of the Manuel Torres awardee, but may not be enough to establish GNG.--Whosethose (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. While the nomination is well-intentioned, it's too hard to evaluate so many different subjects at one time, in one discussion. Recommend withdrawing and nominating separately, a couple each day. —siro χ o 03:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep While the vast majority of these articles should be deleted they vary in terms of office held, length of article, and referencing. These need to be nominated individually. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep I agree that some of the broadcast journalists are probably non-notable, though I have found enough material to rewrite Lyn Vaughn. But they can't be handled here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: per everyone else. Having the same original creator notwithstanding, a bundled nomination of this size that features two different types of people (politicans and broadcast journalists) simply doesn't appear to be the type of clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy bundled AfDs are supposed to be. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep or Keep. The sources show notability in my opinion, but it is hard to judge them as a whole as they are very different and there are so many of them. Improving them one by one would be a better course of action.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. The subject is notable just more work needs to be done on the article to add more sources. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, as this is just too many people to evaluate in one shot. It might, further, be possible that some of these are salvageable with better sourcing while others aren't — which is why only topics that are directly related to each other (such as a filmmaker and his film, a musician and her album, a writer and their book, etc.) should normally be bundled together for one discussion. No prejudice against individual renominations, but batching this many unrelated topics together like this is a recipe for a trainwreck. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per above. This is starting to look WP:SNOW to me. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2023 (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.