Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabel S. Martinez

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel S. Martinez[edit]

Nom - fails WP:BIO regional interest at best. Rklawton 14:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepRegionally notable. Additionally, As I have stated in previous AfD I believe that wikipedia should be very inclusive and not exclusive especially regarding to bios. Callelinea 15:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the interests of disclosure, I note that Callelinea is the author of this article. Bigdaddy1981 16:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Non-notable. I'm willing to change my mind if more reliable sources can be found. All I see here are two genealogical books, 1 link showing she exists, 1 link to the minutes of a school board meeting, and a Miami Herald article from 7 years ago, and I lost my copy of that.--Ispy1981 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Ispy1981 stole my thunder. Realkyhick 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm evil like that. =D.--Ispy1981 15:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person Bigdaddy1981 16:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence of WP:BIO notability.--Dali-Llama 16:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT OTHER ARTICLES ARE JUST AS WEAK AND BASED ON THE STRICT INTERPEDTATIONS OF WIKIPEDIA SHOULD ALSO BE REMOVED SUCH AS John F. Collins HE HAS A ONE LINE ENTRY AND IS OBVIOUSLY A REGIONAL NOTABLE PERSON. MY ARTICLE WAS PICKED BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN VANDALISED OVER 10 TIMES. IF IT WAS NEVER VANDALISED IT WOULD NEVER OF BEEN BROUGHT UP FOR DELEATION. Also It was reviewed by User:Warlordjohncarter when he reviewed it for Wikiproject Cuba and Wikiproject Biography and he at that moment did not feel it merited to be deleated. This process was only started after the numerious times it was vandalizedCallelinea 18:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Collins was the mayor of Boston for eight years. That's pretty notable. The article is a stub and should be expanded, but his notability is obvious. If you've got others you would like to list, please do so. I promise to review them, and if you are correct about them, I'll nominate them for deletion, too. Rklawton 18:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to WP:Bio"Politicians:Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." based on what is in the article now John F. Collins should be deleated. Mrs Martinez article was also named a stub by an editor and is now being requested that it be deleated because it is a stub. Callelinea 18:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - First, after 8 years as mayor of Boston, there is little doubt that someone might have thought to write and publish at least one article about him. The article needs a lot of work, but it's obvious he's notable. I was rather hoping you might add to the list of non-notable biographies. Any luck with that? Second, I did not nominate this article for deletion because it was a stub. I told you repeatedly that it needed to satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO (stubbiness has nothing to do with it), and you promised to add such information to the article. And you did add to the article, and you have five more days to add to the article. However, what you've added so far fails to address our biography guidelines. And that's why your article has been nominated for deletion. Rklawton 19:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note A number of family members also have biographies on Wikipedia; some look mildly notable, e.g. Alonso del Portillo-Marcano, but others do not, such as Alonso J. del Portillo-Tamargo. If others agree that some others should land on Afd, I suggest they be listed after this Afd is finished so that Callelinea (talk · contribs) can work on improving them on one at a time. John Vandenberg 19:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - that is a very good suggestion. Rklawton 19:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as Callelinea says, some of these have been vandalised for some reason (for instance the Raul L. Martinez article has a strange - I assume vandal created - preface that purports him to be a sponge diver) . Bigdaddy1981 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the better of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Callelinea, honestly, slightly more than half of me wishes there was no notability guidelines. I enjoy writing well sourced articles about obscure topics that some people consider not worthy of recording. That said, the project is a group effort and the consensus is that notability is required. Notability is useful in keeping a lot of trash out of Wikipedia. This means I have had to endure a number of Afd's for articles that I have written; each time I have had to improve the articles content in order to demonstrate to others that the article is valuable to the encyclopedia.(I think I have lost one or two) More importantly, WP:BLP has gained traction, and it requires that BIO's must be sourced extremely well (using inline citations helps), and personal details that have not been published in secondary sources must be removed. You are free to continue to expand this bio in order to demonstrate notability; ultimately, the admin makes the final decision. John Vandenberg 19:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish others would view Wikipedia like I do.. I remember when I was young and I would be doing research on many topics or persons that I would hear about or read about in a book or a paper and try to find something on them in an encyclopedia and not find anything, because they were not "notable" enough to be placed there. I was hoping wikipedia could of been that place, but alas I am afraid it is not. Callelinea 19:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I know, it is the biggest encyclopedia ever written, so we working towards your goal. And in 10 years time, when we have written about all the notable things that people can think of, maybe consensus will change and we can start writing about less notable stuff. John Vandenberg 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not start now. and vote to keep the article.. I have been going threw all the bios for deletion and and after reading them, if I feel they might have the minimum of notability I vote to keep them.. It has to start with someone saying yes.Callelinea 20:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the article Ben Weinberger all it shows is external links but no articles written on this person. If he is so notable why is there nothing written on him? I only mention him because RKlawton was involved in the article.. So I would like to know what makes this "actor" notable, while this attorney for various municipalities and for one of the largest school boards not notable? Callelinea 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - some individuals join this project with their own ideas about how it should go. However, this isn't their project. It's Jimbo Wales' project. You follow the path he set down, or you go your own way. He'll even give you the wiki software to use for free. Best wishes, and no hard feelings! Oh, and you're right on that other point. I've only just lately been reading up on our standards for actors (you'll have noticed that if you've reviewed my last week's edit history). We should add the Weinberger article to the deletion list. I have no objection. Rklawton 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will include it as an AFD today if no-one else does. Bigdaddy1981 20:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you guys just do not get at what I am trying to say. Be inclusive. Callelinea 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point - I just don't agree with it. Bigdaddy1981 20:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm as inclusive as they let me be but this really has no claims to notability in an encyclopedic sense. A partner in a local law firm (the firm conceivably might be notable, but there's no article). "one of the youngest ...to represent the Miami school board" in my mind is not a claim to any credible form of notability. (even if she were the youngest)--that would lead to an article for the oldest also, or the first or only [ ] to represent an individual client. She's not even the principal attorney for the board, just one of seven. DGG 20:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the sources seem indiscriminate or trivial, and would be usable for the bio details, but not for notability. DGG 20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ridiculously unnotable. Accomplishment in life is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One could argue that some of your bios that you created don't pass the test. Such as the VP son-in-law, that you claim because he is related to the VP and in government he should be in Wikipedia. Mrs. Martinez is the daughter-in-law of the former mayor of Hialeah (24 years mayors) and now has various governments contracts. I think that would merit inclusion based on what you wrote about the VP son-in-law.Callelinea 20:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that I will probably lose this fight to keep this article included in Wikipedia and I am probably making enemies by pointing out double standards to the people who are voting against my article. But I still feel that if this article was not vandalised as often as it has been it would not be up for a vote. Plus I feel that more articles are good for Wikipedia. Where if you read a paper and some insignifcate thing is mentioned you can look it up in Wikipedia and find more info on that subject. I don't think anyone will ever get me to change my mind about that. Callelinea 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article presents interesting facts, which I'm not doubting, but I don't see what's notable about her. And comment: The creator's comments are detrimental to his cause; Wikipedia isn't the white pages. Nyttend 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable per WP:BIO -- few sources listed are of the trivial type that do not establish actual notability (some self-published book, mentioned in Neighbors section of paper, etc. = Half the country could meet that criteria). DreamGuy 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Get your info correct DreamGuy. The article in the Neighbor Section, was not a self promotion article. It was about the work that she was doing on a particular issue. If you cannot back up your comments with truths don't comment.. But of course you can vote.Callelinea 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no more regionally notable than any other attorney in Dade County. Want articles on all of them? Corvus cornix 22:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To Callelinea: Deletion debates, ideally, are based on policy, not what we think policy should be. That said, Callelinea might be interested in Wikipedia:Inclusionism. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is "true" does not make it encyclopedic. Morgan Wick 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO PROBLEM.. You guys win.. I give up.. go ahead and do what you guys think is best.. I went through this before with Henry Pollack I won that one.. This is all too draining on me..Obviously I lost this one. I disagree with most of you, but thats how the votes go.Callelinea 03:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Maxa megalon 2000 05:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discssion above as non-notable attorney, in a non-notable firm. Bearian 16:43, 28 June 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.