Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Gonzalez (politician)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 speedy delete. I dont consider myself involved, but ping me if you think I am. As the page creator agrees that consensus is reached to delete, this can almost be G7. Per calls to speedy close per WP:SNOW, I'm going to be bold here. v/r - TP 15:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Gonzalez (politician)

edit
Jesus Gonzalez (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional, maybe even G11, fails WP:Politician, what coverage exists relates to the election. Mtking (edits) 01:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the author, and I made a point to make it not promotional. I did not include any of the election platform or the issues he is running on, so that it would not look like campaign spam, therefore it does not meet WP:G11 criteria for spam. As for WP:Politician - he has received considerable mainstream press recently: New York Times, New York Daily News, El Diario, the Village Voice... All well-known news media outlets, that together more than meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" requirement. JesseRafe (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN, specifically part 3. Article and sources (taking out the blog sources and his own personal campaign site) seem to be dealing with the election and campaign. This would indicate that the election or campaign could possibly have an article and this could be redirected or merged into that article. There is definitely promotional material, albeit AGF accidental, in the second large section. It is entirely about who is supporting his campaign and what organizations are endorsing him. This is promotional fluff with no information on what impacts him, or what he is impacting, etc etc. This gives us a lack for criteria met to have a BLP on this subject. This is not encyclopedic and does not indicate notability in either respect. Perhaps in the future if he wins the seat he will affect things and warrant more coverage. But as it stands I do not see this subject meeting Wiki criteria for inclusion. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, the endorsements could be seen as being promotional, but I guess we have a different idea of what kind of content is purely promotional versus also being informative. I only added the endorsements as a way of providing more notability -- I didn't include every Tom, Dick and Jane who supported him, but just established entities and people with wikipedia articles. Perhaps editing the section is the solution rather than deleting the article wholesale. If the references to the other politicians and labor unions were removed and the newspapers remained, would that be less promotional (i.e. politicians and interest groups clearly have agendas, whereas newspapers (to a degree) are more objective in their assessment and the views of newspapers are more "newsworthy" and notable than those of pols)? JesseRafe (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources cover him specifically, they're all talking about the election and campaign and long standing convention in these cases is merge and redirect to the election article if one exists and delete if it doesn't. Valenciano (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only the Times article doesn't mention him exclusively, but the Village Voice, the Daily News and the El Diario articles are expressly about him, I just included the Times because it's still basically the paragon of print journalism, and mentions therein add to notability (in my opinion). JesseRafe (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eight refs. The third, seventh and eighth aren't about him. The sixth is his campaign website, so automatically half the refs can be ignored when considering notability. The fourth and fifth are newspaper endorsements, viz: "His election could pave the way for fresh representation of our communities. We back Gonzalez’s bid." Does such sycophancy (basically a Hispanic newspaper endorsing one of their own) establish notability? I'd say no. Either way those two simply cover him in the context of the campaign. Per WP:POLITICIAN being a candidate for office is not notable and thus coverage purely in the context of a campaign also does not make someone notable. The New York Times article isn't about him. It's about the election. The Village Voice one incidentally is a blog and this its reliability is questionable. We're therefore left with no sources covering him in any depth, therefore delete. Valenciano (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow! I don't know if there is an actual Wikipedia Policy to cite, but I should think "Don't be racist" would be one of them. As if the comment "a Hispanic newspaper endorsing one of their own" weren't prima facie racist on its own, it's doubly ignorant because the other two candidates are Hispanic themselves. How can this vote be taken seriously with such an ignorant blatant racist such as yourself? It's really hard to be civil in response to this. Also, learn to count and read. There are not eight references, but six. And I never said every single reference was about him. The ones that aren't about him are in the article as references to the facts to which they immediately follow, i.e. his opponents. I clearly stated in my response to you which specific references were expressly about him, as not all of them were. And the article clearly states in the text which papers endorsed him and which mentioned him in articles. I am sorry for being a little uncouth in my response to you, but really? It's 2011! "[A] Hispanic newspaper endorsing one of their own"!!! Unbelievable, you disgust me. JesseRafe (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling me an ignorant blatant racist is certainly a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and I'd strongly suggest that you strike or withdraw that comment. Before you speak of ignorance, you might want to have a read of the Hispanic article: "Contrary to many beliefs, Hispanic is not a race, as the Chilean Nobel Prize Gabriela Mistral once said, "mi patria es mi lengua." The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race".[25] The U.S. Department of Transportation defines Hispanic to include, "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or other SPANISH or PORTUGUESE culture or origin, regardless of race."
Your attacks on me are hardly worth replying to but I will say that I would have thought that my user name might give you some clue as to where I live (hint: third largest city in Spain) so it's not very sensible to accuse me of some kind of anti-Spanish agenda. Hell I've probably written more articles about Spanish politics and the like than anyone on here. I stand completely by my comments by the way, if a newspaper called the "Voice of Canadians in New York" endorsed a Canadian candidate for a seat, I definitely would be sceptical of the notability that that confers on the candidate, being mindful of WP:POLITICIAN. Incidentally, yes there are 8 refs in the article, they're even helpfully numbered one to eight at the bottom. I'll repeat, since you preferred to go off on an ill advised straw man personal attack rather than address my points, two of them are endorsements of him, worth mentioning in an article about the election yes, but not sufficient for a separate article. The New York Times is an article about the campaign, with the Village voice one in a blog and therefore of questionable worth. No suitable refs = delete. Valenciano (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I called you out on being racist (which is a generic term to include being prejudiced to ethnicities as well, as the term "ethnicist" has no usage that I'm aware of, and also is often extended to those who are prejudiced against others based on national origin). And I said it was hard to be civil to you, because you're clearly guilty of bigotry saying it's no surprise "a Hispanic newspaper endorsing one of their own" when I pointed out (much to your ignorance because you didn't even look into the other candidates before coming to a racially-motivated and dismissive conclusion without considering the merits of one's candidacy and the motives behind a newspaper's endorsement) that Gonzalez's two opponents are also Hispanic (both Dominican), so why did El Diario not endorse them (it couldn't be because of something as irrelevant as the issues, now could it?. Also, yes, I know what Valencia is. It's in Spain. When did I say anything about Spain or Spaniards? Also, even if you do consider yourself to be a Latino or Hispanic in addition to a Spaniard, Valencian, Catalonian or whatever, that in no way then means that by default you can't be racist against them, ever heard of a self-loather? I referred to you as being a racist with regards to Latinos, something that I know first-hand exists in Spain (I've lived in Barca for a while and have seen how dark-skinned Mexicans are treated and looked-down upon there). As a Spaniard you should be well-aware of the distinction between "Spanish" and "Hispanic" and "Latino". Again, read what I write and don't jump to conclusion to justify your bigotry. JesseRafe (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no bigotry in his comment and your own response is incoherent, since you assume that skin-pigmentation is somehow necessarily involved, which is wholly without foundation, either as an explanation for the newspaper's endorsement or for Valenciano's comment. You really ought to withdraw these accusations. Paul B (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jesse, as I've already asked you to drop these ill advised and unfounded accusations against me and you persist, I've opened up an ANI thread as I don't see the point in dealing with Have you stopped beating your wife? style arguments. I'll simply reiterate that a newspaper endorsement is grounds for inclusion in the relevant election article, not grounds for a separate article about a candidate. Valenciano (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna have to agree with these guys here, Jesse. Please peruse WP:RS, and especially WP:NEWSORG for guidance on reliable sources. Promotional items, whether in a newspaper or otherwise, are of extremely limited value in WP, and by their nature are apt to be misleading in terms of establishing notability. You need to retract the above statement and apologize to Valenciano for WP:UNCIVIL. Calling into question the neutrality of a news organization in establishing notability is extremely pertinent and valuable in discussions about political candidates, as per WP:POLITICIAN. VanIsaacWS 19:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because none of the editors who have voted for deletion have responded to the constructive suggestions for reasons behind the inclusion of some of the material, or the actual merits of some of the sources, I hope that a tally for consensus is not made just on these votes alone, until more editors get a chance to weigh in, or these editors take the time to respond. JesseRafe (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the nomination the text as it stands does nothing but promote him and would need a fundamental re-write to meet guidelines IMO, however I am going to wait till the outcome of the election tomorrow before commenting more, he may well meet WP:Politician then. Mtking (edits) 23:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you send me the link to how to do that on my talk page? I know Mr. Gonzalez is gonna run again for City Council or something like that, and I wouldn't mind being able to save the 30 or so minutes it took to throw this all together, categories, infobox stuff and everything. It'd be great to have that in my user-space and be able to recall it later. Hopefully we can still do it while the data on JG(P) is still raw and not archived. Thanks. JesseRafe (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to save a copy of the wiki-text as a file on your computer (I was going to e-mail it to you but you don't have a e-mail link) as keeping of articles in user space in case they run again is not a good idea, they end up looking like a WP:FAKEARTICLE. Mtking (edits) 05:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How delightfully low-tech. Done. And thank you. I think consensus has been overwhelmingly reached on the merits of this article per G11 and WP:Politician. I already wrote the bare bones for the page of the victor, Rafael Espinal. Since I don't like that guy that much, I'm not gonna spend as much time drussing it up with links yet, (though everything there is accurate, and the references are good) but if any of you here see it come across an AfD, please vote keep. Thanks. JesseRafe (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Change to Delete, I misunderstood certian factors. Sorry) - We should not discount regional notability, supported by independent sources based on notability standards we expect within our own region. It is quite possible, and sources substantiate the subject of this article is considered notable within their own geographic region. Including an article, which is fully verifiable, only enhances this composite of knowledge we call Wikipedia. Judging a subjects notability by what be expect regionally, imposes our own bias upon standards which are acceptable in other parts of the world. My76Strat (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well what sources do you have then ? Mtking (edits) 06:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally have to go to bed but here are some more sources:
Just linking them here for others to look at should they choose, don't have time to synthesize them with the article now. JesseRafe (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article meets WP:GNG in it's current form. To suggest otherwise is to impose a standard higher than what is already established as sufficient. I call on the nominator to retract this nomination, and return it to normal editing standards. With speed! My76Strat (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I don't see any coverage outside that of the election context so WP:BLP1E applies when it says Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. so I still stand by the nom. Mtking (edits) 07:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, I am looking for sources beyond this single event to hopefully satisfy BLP1E, which I agree is a factor. I suspect there exists some reference related to involvement as a community organizer which can break the bounds of single event coverage. Furthermore, if it is found that the subject does not qualify for an article at this time, I favor honoring the request to have its contents userfied for improvement and republishing at a later date if and when the subject rises to sufficient prominence. My76Strat (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source from 2009 which discusses the subject in context completely separate from the 54th election. I think it is clear that this subject surpasses the limitations of a BLP1E. My76Strat (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err... No not significant. Mtking (edits) 10:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concede. I was under the impression he won or was expected to win, which I see he did not. I tried. My76Strat (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Look, why don't I save you some time, I am unlikely to change my mind on this for the simple fact that if there was anything out there that this guy was notable for (other than running in the election) then his campaign would have made the most of it and you would not have to look any further than his very own campaign website for all the links. Put your self in the campaign managers shoes for a moment, if it existed you would shout it from the roof top. But a look at the Our Candidate page of the website makes no real claims to notability, in fact if you posted that page as a WP page it would get deleted as A7.Mtking (edits) 11:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: precedent makes clear that unsuccessful candidates for political office are not inherently notable. There doesn't appear to be anything non-political that this guy is notable for either. --Lincolnite (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the objective measure that if the election is not suitably notable or cared about enough for an article on its own, only the independently notable participants in it should have an article. Seeing as how there is not, at present, an article on the special election for the 54th state district, only those participating in it who are independently notable should have articles, and Gonzalez does not qualify. Losing an election does not in itself make on notable, and I see nothing else in the article that indicates notability. --Golbez (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty much a SNOW, The creator understands and agrees! I move for an administrator to close this discussion and follow the unanimous recommendation for deletion. My76Strat (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jesus_Gonzalez_(politician)&oldid=1090455323"