Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federico Mena

: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. J04n(talk page) 00:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

=[[Federico Mena]]=

:{{la|Federico Mena}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federico_Mena Stats])

:({{Find sources|Federico Mena}})

This is not an encyclopedia article, it's a summary of an autobiography hosted by the subject himself. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

::Keep. He is a known individual in GNOME project. Earliest codes were written by him and Miguel de Icaza. This article is not a self promotion. Anyone that reads anything about the GNOME project know and heard about him abundantly. 75.70.142.23 (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep. I believe the subject is notable enough for inclusion - but yes, the article needs some TLC and some refs. Worst case scenario, this should redirect to the GNOME page. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for commenting, Ultraexactzz. As this article currently stands it fails WP:BLP policy, so it very much needs some tender loving care. The problem is that when I sought out any sort of non-trivial coverage from what Wikipedia deems reliable third party sources, I came up empty handed. I'm not sure what the policy is on setting up redirects for subjects who do not pass any relevant policy either, so I will defer to anyone else who is more versed on that topic. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. Just a guy working for a company--notability is barely even asserted in the article. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:RS, etc. Qworty (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see no evidence of notability.Deb (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect to GNOME. There are are a lot of passing mentions in reliable sources and [http://derstandard.at/1318461320472/Interview-Federico-Mena-Quintero-talks-about-the-Document-Centric-Desktop at least one] more in-depth article, and I think if he can be considered a creative professional he may satisfy points three and/or four of WP:CREATIVE, but there doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG (yet). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete The FOSDEM bio is interesting but not sufficient for independent or even a reliable source. Fails pretty much everything as Qworty points out above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

: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.