Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Guzman

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 no consensus. This is very close to a delete consensus but I am erring on the side of caution. No unique controversy that would warrant an extraordinary third relist. A Train^talk 09:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Guzman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete Entirely promotional, no indications of notability. References fail the criteria for establishing notability as they rely either exclusively on PRIMARY sources (interviews), or are unreliable or unestablished sources (e.g. Weekbit) or are unattributed references that request submissions for profiling (e.g. greatestphysiques.com) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional Bluebonnet07 (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The general notability guidelines for inclusion within Wikipedia require that the subject of the article has received significant third-party coverage. Guzman has been covered as the primary subject by:
  1. Bodybuilding.com (one of the top publishers in the bodybuilding world): [1].
  2. Train Magazine (cover athlete): [2]
  3. Houstonia Magazine: [3]
  4. People Magazine: [4]

This coverage is significant because it "addresses the topic directly and in detail", reliable because these are major publishers with demonstrated "editorial integrity", and independent because they are secondary sources synthesized from interviews with Guzman. Taken altogether, the general notability guidelines are satisfied word by word. Malinaccier (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment You say "they are secondary sources synthesized from interviews with Guzman" and that's the problem. They aren't "synthesized" enough. There's no independent opinion and analyis. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. The articles are not transcripts of interviews and they have their own authors. They are secondary synthesis of information from primary interviews. Malinaccier (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • As per WP:CORPDEPTH, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources fail the criteria for establishing notability. From WP:ORGIND, other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. I can't explain it any better. You say the interviews are not transcripts - but that isn't the test. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 23:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is an essay about interviews. From WP:INTERVIEW: "Some interviews combine both primary and secondary material, very similar to a book that contains well-researched content in addition to autobiographical material. In general, written interviews published by reliable sources are not simple transcripts, but are edited by the publishing organization, and this may qualify them as secondary." These sources discuss Guzman and use material from an interview to provide additional quotations. Malinaccier (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some references that fail the criteria for establishing notability can, in fact, be used to substantiate claims and this essay appears to address this aspect when fact-checking articles. A smaller subset of those same references meet the criteria for establishing notability which is a stricter bar. One of the fundamental requirements for establishing notability is that the references must be intellectually independent - perhaps with some independent opinions or analysis included in the reference. In my opinion, only your fourth reference from people.com comes close - and its a gossip column with unsubstantiated details that should not (cannot?) be relied on (unreliable). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Good discussion but Malinaccier has won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete published interviews with a subject are not indepdent, 3rd-party reliable sources, not enough to pass the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 23 September 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.