Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Delgado

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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Delgado

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

Frankly this is entirely PROD material and should be deleted as such, but in case it's simply boldly removed with no explanations at all, here we are; my own searchhes are not finding better (in fact they nearly found nothing at all from a few trivial mentions from 10 years ago) and, not only are the current sources consisting of trivial interviews and "videos", some of the ones that even come from known news sources are not actually substantial; the NYTimes simply talks about what there is to know about him, the "Alternet" (questionable source in itself) is a clear interview. He's certainly not notable as an author as he only has a trivial library holding count. Essentially, the article bears to simply being an overpuffed article about what there is to know about his career. I'll also note the sheer fact this has existed for nearly 11 years now and it has hardly ever changed, presumably of course by the facts there's essentially no actual improvements to be made. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG just from the sources already in the article. To clarify, I do not hold the interviews as "trivial". They are focused, and they are not only from one source, but from multiple reliable sources. This is definitely sufficient notability. Fieari (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is still not convincing to overwhelmingly and confidently keep this article as a both independently notable and substantial article; I have listed my concerns above including the fact there's essentially nothing else apart from those events itself; having an interview is trivial because it shows there's nothing of actual journalism note there, and it's essentially simply the subject speaking himself. Being "from multiple news sources" is not convincing to actually both keep and improve this, which it would seriously need, and since my notes above mention all of this including the fact the article is puffingly mentioning all there is to know about his career, there states the unconvincing for this "sufficient notability". SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but your arguments just sound (to me) like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GNG only requires coverage from multiple reliable sources in a context that is about the subject. The fact that you aren't a fan of that coverage is irrelevant. As I read it, this article clearly and objectively passes the requirement. Fieari (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never stated that I hated or had any actual feelings about the coverage at all (there's no need to twice mention how I supposedly felt about it or not), I merely stated the facts about what it was and how it concerns the article itself; I still confirm my concerns as they are clear, exact and specific. To note the GNG claims again, it's not "significant coverage" if it all simply boils to simply state the specifics and overall information about his career. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep: here's a book source that appears to present WP:SIGCOV on the subject: Mission Rejected: U. S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq. The book is written by Peter Laufer so appears to be RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This would still only be one source that is essentially stating the history, sure it may be an acceptable source, but we would still need significant and substantial amounts of this coversge, since I analyzed and noted the concerns about the others above. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he meets WP:AUTHOR, specifically point #3, for his book The Sutras of Abu Ghraib. See review in SF Gate, CSPAN book interview, and Yes Magazein. See also WP:SIGCOV in New York Times. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, my full analysis above is not being taken into account, the CSPAN interview is exactly that, an interview; the YesMagazine is essentially only a split paragraph about him, that's not substantial coverage, I then analyzed the NYTimes source above as it is, so simply listing it again is not saying anything different if I listed it myself. At best, this simply keeps the 1 review. SwisterTwister talk 02:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:BASIC. The subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources: The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Mission Rejected: U. S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq, Chapter 11. Chelsea Green Publishing. The subject's notability is not contingent upon whether or not the article has been copy edited, changed, or improved. See also WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I have reviewed the sources on the article, reviewed the sources noted here, and did my own search to confirm enough significant coverage exists. It does, passes WP:AUTHOR. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Once again my analysis and examinations noted above are being completely ignored in that I have examined all of the sources listed, the LAtimes linked above now is simply again talking about his story; simply being mentioned and noted in a major news source is not inherited notability. He is not applicably for WP:AUTHOR because there are no library holdings or substantial publications as an author (all that has ever been offered here is 1 review), simply being mentioned part of articles about the war and military is not inherited notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:AUTHOR has no mention of notability being associated with library holdings. The subject's book, The Sutras of Abu Ghraib, has been reviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle (Article link), and coverage about the subject meets WP:BASIC. Regarding library holdings, for starters, the book is catalogued by the National Library of Australia (Link). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - This AfD has noticeably become overpersonal in that the nomination is being criticized yet I have laid the concerns clearly. The claims of "You don't like the article and No efforts" are blatant in that they have no actual involvement in this AfD are therefore unnecessary. The consensus that library holdings help for notability is that, although not shown in the current listed notabilities, Wikipedia AfDs can make their own thoughts and consensus, including when it comes to advertisements, none of the comments here have come close to mentioning or acknowledging that. Simply stating WP:BASIC or a mere review is hardly the numerical substance we actually need, and if that suggests that's simply the best there is; it shows the type of improvements there would be, if all that would thinly change this article were merely a review. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @STSpeaking for myself, and likely for the others, I believe we understand that you would like to reject these sources. I even agree that consensus CAN reject these sources. Where we disagree is that we DON'T reject these sources. I, and the others who have voted keep, all seem to agree that we ACCEPT these sources. This appears to be the consensus that is building. I understand your arguments, I simply disagree with them. It appears that the others do as well. Please note that when I cited WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I wasn't referring to you not liking the article so much as not liking the sources. You clearly don't like the sources. But simply not liking the sources is not, in my opinion, a reason to reject sources as establishing notability. It appears the other keep !voters agree with me, and disagree with you. Fieari (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I also said is that, unfortunately like several AfDs at this time, this one is getting overpersonal with overpersonal comments, that is not relevant to this AfD, no form of "agreement" with these forms of comments would be "consensus" or acceptable. With this said, I never said I explicitly "did not like these sources", I'm stating why they are not acceptable for this AfD and article. If this is closed as Keep, it shows the exact type of ignoring of genuine concerns and comments, and the allowing of having such overpersonal comments as have happened here. What would be appropriate is that this is relisted to allow uninvolved people, and hopefully, not overpersonal comments. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ignoring genuine concerns and comments. I am not ignoring them! I am disagreeing with them! You reject these sources. I find your reasons for rejecting these sources invalid per Wikipedia policy AND community consensus. Yes, consensus can change, but I don't believe that it has here. Fieari (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:SOLDIER. Sources seem acceptable to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. on the basis of promotionalism. Read the text. Adjectives of praise sprinkled throughout, and the career being made to appear as important as possible. Borderline notability is possible, but it doesn't actually matter. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We hear this reasoning a lot from you. And of course it is invalid. Why are you so against WP:SOFIXIT? You obviously had the time to review the article and sources. Promotional wording is very easy to fix. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2016 (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.