Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemente G. Gomez-Rodriguez (2nd nomination)

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. —Kurykh 03:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clemente G. Gomez-Rodriguez[edit]

Nom - Fails WP:BIO. "Prominent lawyer" and (possibly) notable relatives are this subject's only claim to fame. The first nomination resulted in a speedy keep only because the nominator was in violation of WP:POINT. Rklawton 21:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, First off let me state that this person who I did the article on is distantly related to me. I have met with him three times in my life. I just wanted to clear that up before anyone were to accuse me of having a conflict of interest. Mr. Gomez is one of the most prominent, if not the most prominent criminal defense attorney, since Castro took over the government in 1959. He defended General Arnoldo Ochoa and others in 1989 in one of the few trials the Castro government has allowed to be televised. He was allowed into the United States as a refugee and has been on the local TV in South Florida many times. Callelinea 02:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-published author with enough other possibility for notability so as to make a worthwhile biography. Chris 07:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question-Rklawton, I note that you are the proposer of many of the deletion nominations for articles written by user Callelinea. May I ask why there is this pattern? Assuming good faith, this trend is potentially troublesome. Chris 07:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer - Callelinea has created over a half-dozen articles about his family that have been AfD'd – all featuring his own family, genealogy. Callelinea also has a history of canvassing editors for support in AfDs and refusing to answer questions about his relationship to the subjects of his articles. His own Wikipedia mentor has withdrawn support. Even so, I restored one of his articles from speedy delete and supported his "unblocking." The pattern then, is of a COI editor on Callelinea's part and an admin doing his best to continue assuming good faith. In this particular case, I see an article about a guy who was just one lawyer on a team of lawyers in a notable trial, and the author of just one book published only this year (no awards or reviews provided). It's a long-standing AfD custom to evaluate the article at hand for notability. Maybe the guy is notable, but the article itself needs to demonstrate this point. The AfD lasts five days – so that gives editors plenty of time to improve the article. I've seen many AfD nominators withdraw their nominations after such improvements. I've also seen some articles recreated after AfD when editors have been able to create an article demonstrating sufficient notability. As a result, there's no reason to keep this article unless the article itself can demonstrate the subject's notability. As I've said repeatedly over the last two weeks, Callelinea would do well to focus his energies on improving the article (if at all possible). Rklawton 14:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Responce: I was asked about my possible COI on the last days of the AfD, at that point I felt the need for disclosure was irrevevlent since by then almost everyone that was going to vote, had already voted, as a matter fact after I was asked not one single person voted either for or against. As a Cuban of a prominant family, my family conections have made me related to by marriage, blood or friendship to almost every President of Cuba, starting from the first President of Cuba to the present Raul Castro. My expertise is in history and geneology, especially as it relates to Cuba. Callelinea 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Additional Comment. I did not canvas other editors to vote in favor of my AfD's. I contacted editors that knew something about the articles or the topic that felt could give Valid, un baised, and educated comments on the articles, not like others who just vote without knowing nothing about the subject matter. Callelinea 14:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply - yup. And that's what we call canvassing. And it's against the rules. And, it could result in a 3rd AfD nomination on the grounds that this nomination was unduly influenced by your efforts. Rklawton 01:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then go ahead and nominate it again, and again, nominate them all. boy your a sore loser and a bad winner.. There is no way to make you happy, now I understand why those two guys voted against you when you won your administrator vote.. You really do have issues, I thought this was problem between us was over but obviously you hold a grudge.Your actions are what is damaging wikipedia, not mine.Callelinea 01:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The canvassing that I might have done was only to a few indiviuals I asked to look over the articles up for vote give me their feedback and to vote what they felt was best, and according to how I understood the rules what I did was permissable.Callelinea 01:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can understand Rklawton's nomination, and I would understand if this were deleted. However, I personally find the article very interesting so I am more than happy to see it stay. In terms of notability, Callelinea is correct that the Ochoa trial was perhaps the most important trial in Cuba since 1959 - and still is. And I think its safe to say that if this were a US or British subject, the notability would not be in question.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 07:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If I may be bold, can I just state as well that the close-knit nature of the Cuban-American community, and what I gather is Callelinea's standing in the real world (which is of some note itself), it is inevitable that there will be real world connections to certain notable subjects. This could be considered a COI, however I believe it is more constructive to allow an editor such as Callelinea, with an obvious welcome expertise, to continue their work here. Perhaps the geneology elements of the article could be toned down, but I have yet to see an article that has not been of interest. And I haven't felt the need to tinker with them particuarly - which considering my twitchy fingers over the Cuban related articles - is very rare! Which shows that are of quality.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments seems to be notable enough. Davewild 07:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but edit!) - The Ochoa trial was kind of a big deal, and his defense attorneys were a part of it. However, I agree with the Zleitzen that the geneaological nature of these articles needs to be toned down. Perhaps this article should start with, "X is a Cuban criminal defense attorney, best known for defending General Ochoa..." Then, if his genealogy is to be discussed, it should be done in a separate section ("X is the brother-in-law of Cuban diplomat Y"). While I find genealogy fascinating and Callelinea's work to be done well & in great depth, I can't really see the relevance in listing every single person to whom someone is related. I am all for inclusion on Wikipedia, but the genealogical stuff is getting to be a bit much. takethemud 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok guys, I guess I do get carried away with the geneology aspect of my articles, but I just find it very curious as to how all the mayor players in Cuba in politics, music, law, etc. are all inter-related. Not sure yet if its because they are all the best in their fields or is it because of all their family ties, even though I am in one way related to or my family has connections with all these players in Cuban history, even I question did they get to be big in their fields because of luck, talent, conections or a mixture of the three. In the future I will try to condence the geneology aspect of my articles. Callelinea 18:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:39, 8 July 2007 (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.