Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Romero Ellner

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. May need cleanup but not deletion. Tone 14:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Romero Ellner[edit]

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

one sided WP:Attack article. 80% of the sources used in the article are opinion pieces or obscure limited circulation magazines which are not WP:RS Cathar11 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The negative material in the article is, subject to exceptions, sourced. I'm not saying there aren't necessarily any POV or reliability concerns about the article, but deletion is not appropriate. He's notable and and G10 does not apply - the negative material is generally well sourced. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Automatically notable as a member or former member of the country's parliament. - Eastmain (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are poor, and in some cases fail verification. See cite #5: http://archivo.laprensa.hn/ez/index.php/laprensa_user/ediciones/2003/12/31/2003_dejo_tres_diputados_presos_y_otro_profugo completely fails verification as it does not even have the name of the person being supposedly referenced by source. The majority of these are either opinion or low circulation and/or self published sources. Not good for a biography and certainly not in line with standards for Wikipedia's BLP policy. Moogwrench (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The La Prensa article appears to spell his name wrong (as "David Romero Eller" rather than "Ellner"), but the name is present in the article. - Eastmain (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am seeing a good deal of secondary source coverage. Which is not to say the article should not be heavily cleaned up, it should. The appropriate place to post to get some help with that, would be WP:BLPN. Cirt (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whoa here ... this fellow was a member of a national parliament. That's a prima facie keep under WP:BIO, done deal. As far as the sources being "poor," La Prensa is Honduras' largest circulating newspaper and El Heraldo is run by the same ownership group. There seems to be a misunderstanding about WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK, neither of which mean or say that the preponderance of an article's text can't be negative. In any event, that's a content dispute, which is inappropriate for AfD. Ravenswing 08:31, 24 December 2009 (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.