Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Esquivel

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. ✗plicit 00:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Esquivel

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Nancy Esquivel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

One of a series of promotional spam articles written by a WP:SPA using blatantly phony sources. It has already been deleted over a half-dozen times over on es.wiki. CSD declined without providing rationale. JTtheOG (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Venezuela, and Florida. JTtheOG (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator removed the {{db-spam}} tag because this article did not meet the very specific requirements of WP:G11. Whatever the intent of the article’s creator, the article did not use promotional language and it did not “require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic.” Speedy deletion criteria are much narrower than for this AfD. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Aside from the problem of the cited sources failing verification, a Google search found nothing about the subject other than social media posts and very trivial mentions. I see no indication that the subject meets any notability criteria. - Donald Albury 13:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL. No major role in major community projects. Her book isn't notable either. Not notable from her radio show. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per the above. The phony sources are troubling -- @JTtheOG, thanks for catching this problem. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: Per nom, most of the source provides unverifiable information. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 18:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not even close to notable. The made up awards, the difficulties in verifying facts, the third-place finish for the equivalent of dog catcher, all are red flags for notability. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2025 (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.