Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beto Altamirano: Difference between revisions

Beto Altamirano (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)

Entrepreneur and former San Antonio mayoral candidate. There are a lot of citations in this page, but nearly all of them are either run of the mill campaign coverage or articles about one of his businesses that don’t really go in-depth on him as a person. I’d suggest a redirect to 2025 San Antonio mayoral election. (Also, not that this is relevant to the notability, but the article reads like a promotional bio commissioned by Altamirano himself) BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I left a comment below explaining where I was coming from in writing the article. I’d like to hear your thoughts on it, and I’m down to change it or add as much as we need to make it better. HeroicXiphos15 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi y’all. This is the original writer of the article. I get the criticism (it was my first time writing an article like this, so I was definitely prepared for it to need amendment), but I object to its deletion. I’m all for editing the language and content to make it more balanced (I came from a place of largely liking the guy, and a lot of the coverage was positive), but I still think there should be an article about him. He has been all over San Antonio politics these days, even after the mayoral race, and San Antonians should know about him and what he’s doing, in both positive and negative ways. I’m happy to collaborate on this further. HeroicXiphos15 (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime after October 10 the article went off the rails. I see sources that do not even mention him, others in which he is just name-checked. It’s possible that the article should be kept but it’s very hard to analyze it in this state. From Oct 13-24 about 20K bytes were added, and my gut feeling is that about 18K of those are unnecessary and unreliable sources were added. You need to at least get rid of all of the insignificant or non-independent sources (and the data in the article that is sourced to them). Examples: 5, 7, 9-11, 15, 20. Read up on reliable sources. Lamona (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll take a look at the offending sources and see about paring down. On first glance I’m a little unsure why some of them don’t count as reliable sources (like the official page for the 311 app on the official San Antonio website), but I’m sure that will become clearer. For instance, even if the 311 page doesn’t mention Altamirano, it outlines the service that his company provided. HeroicXiphos15 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sources all need to have content that is ABOUT him. The page for the 311 app doesn’t say anything about him. By adding a link to his company’s services you are basically doing original research which is not acceptable. I don’t know if you’ve looked at Your first article, but even if you’ve got more experience here, it is a good outline for basic policies. Lamona (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I removed more information that I couldn’t find reliable secondary sources for, now that I know that primary isn’t viable. HeroicXiphos15 (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It will help to read the WP:general notability guideline, particularly the definition of significant coverage. —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m thinking he fits into the definition of “major local political figures who have received significant press coverage” in the Notability(People) politician guidelines HeroicXiphos15 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it is a stretch to call the subject a major political figure. He never held elected office and never held any positions in government. —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]