Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaime Martínez Tolentino

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Martínez Tolentino

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

Totally unsourced bio of a questionably notable living person who really really dosen't want it on wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See WP:BEFORE - using the search link above, there are plenty of sources out there. Most appear to be in Spanish and I don't have any skill in that language to be able to cite them appropriately. The subject certainly appears to be notable per WP:PROF, it just needs sources. BLP concerns are minimal as there appears to be nothing contentious in the article. ukexpat (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...as per above!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced and marginally notable at best. Also the subject is requesting deletion and has been treated pretty badly by overly-officious wikipedians. He doesn't want this, and Wikipedia will not be weaker without one questionably notable BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See the article's talk page and the user's talk page - I have bent over backwards trying to help the guy understand what we need. Officious? Please, I help out new users all over the place. – ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- You could have done a lot better, and this is officious. He was not pushing a POV, but you publically and visably accused him on his own googleable biography of biasing his own article, when he objected to the tags, you replaced them. The worst experience anyone can have is to find themselves a BLP subject and edit the article and get slapped for not knowing the rules. A bit more empathy here would have been good.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be many sources available that need looking at and adding if appropriate by a Spanish speaker which I am not.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 19:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few refs..however most i find are not in English..If anyone can understand them pls add them!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of AGF would help. Also, does this help? "Jaime+Martínez+Tolentino"&source=bl&ots=qIrgTw4NpY&sig=vOccC7hDJ8wsXRA3QIkhT597SCY&hl=en&ei=7xVrS5yWM5TNjAfZzeiHBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=&f=false Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i will let the person that added this tag to the article take it off/or some one else (since i add the refs lets someone else see them first)...All is ok now..well still need refs for awards section but its a keeper now!!...Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Sorry did not realizes there's a process..Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barely notable BLP with subject requesting deletion. Viridae ^Talk 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Viridae. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I'd help myself, if my Spanish was better. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject seems notable for sure; the very unfortunate incidents with the article subject have nothing to do with the appropriateness of the article on WP. I see nothing overly officious but for sure the subject got comprehensibly confused and it could have been handled better. I suggest the subject to be contacted, to make apologies and ask him to help us get the article on him right. The subject seemed to like the idea of the article in first place, he was only disappointed by later interaction with editors. --Cyclopia^talk 22:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is requesting we get out of his life. Wikipedia didn't have an article on him until 2 weeks ago, and did just fine. There's probably about another 800,000 more notable people we don't have an article on him. But you don't give a toss about him because you want to play the inclusionist game. I mean, what reasonable person doesn't want a biography that any malicious fool can edit? Stop it. This is unfair and irresponsible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest to stop the moral panic, calm down and discuss rationally on the issue. There is nothing unfair and irresponsible in honestly attempting to have coverage of notable subjects. I understand we disagree on how to treat BLPs but this doesn't mean I "don't give a toss about him": quite the contrary, I just left a message on his talk page apologizing for what happened to him, among other things. --Cyclopia^talk 22:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - He's not notable. His request is perfectly reasonable and understandable to anyone but a wikipedian.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The notability is currently discussed by this AfD: I respectfully disagree. His request is perfectly reasonable and understandable, absolutely: again, I respectfully disagree about satisfying it. It seems also that the subject is simply distressed by the interaction he had with editors. He gave references about himself on the article talk page. He then was distressed by the COI tags etc. and changed his mind, but to me it simply seems an unfortunate case of WP:BITE. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Whatever the reason, the subject doesn't want to be on Wikipedia - and we have no reason to insist that he must be. There is no loss in granting his understandable request. To do otherwise is not respectful or empathetic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) There is, in my opinion, the loss of encyclopedic information about a notable subject. That's the reason to insist that he must be. One thing is being respectful and empathetic, another is accepting every subject request. I really understand why the subject wants the article deleted, and empathize with the situation: I simply happen to think that it is not a good enough reason. Do we have to consider subject requests? Of course. Do we have to accept all of them? No, we as a community debate it and decide what to do. I understand that you disagree, but please let's keep rational and cool, and let's see. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I get the impression that the subject wrote almost the entire article himself, so he could have it deleted under WP:CSD G7. However, I think he was just upset about the COI tag and being treated with suspicion. Notability is still unclear though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we can stop putting scary templates on the article and let him point out any inaccuracies, the subject will not have a problem with the article existing. I just wonder who wrote this article in the first place, and where he or she got all the information. I found this source, but I cannot even tell if it is the right person. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Viridae and the fact that until a compelling/notable reason appears from out of somewhere to keep this article, the simple decent right thing to do is to respect the subject of the article's wishes.radek (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is marginally notable, if at all, and has requested deletion. Unit Anode 15:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like he fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF, hardly any citation in google scholar, nothing but a dab page links to his bio from article space, and he requested deletion. Pcap ping 15:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per this message on my talk page, Mr Martínez Tolentino's request to delete the article has been withdrawn. - bold for emphasis so folks don't miss this. – ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a prolific writer who has been cited in Spanish-language literature, including these books: [1] and [2]. Since the article's subject does not object to having an article, it would make sense if a Spanish speaking editor could seek out further references. Warrah (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - somewhat prolific published writer. Article has sources. Why would we want to delete it? Yworo (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. GoogleBooks gives 249 hits[3], a few minor awards, so looks like passing WP:AUTHOR. No controversial or negative info has been brought up, so no particular BLP concerns here. Nsk92 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ethical thing to do on a person of marginal notability who doesn't want his biography here, where it can be edited by 13-year olds, haters, fools, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that you will find that the subject has changed his mind. Not that him not wanting the article should ever have had any bearing on this discussion. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has in the case of no consensus. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ukexpat, and generally per WP:AUTH. LotLE×talk 20:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears to be notable enough to pass our guidelines, and does not want his article deleted, so I see no reason to delete. Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marginal notability. Claims that subject does or does not want the article have yet to be verified through proper channels. Wikipedia will not suffer if this article does not appear. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, cleanup, and indef semi until flagged revisions comes online Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Ukexpat. I'd be happy to stick the article in indef semiprotection though, if that would help allay the concerns of the subject. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and semiprotect per Lankiveil. I fear opt-out is part of a slippery slide. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not seem to me that the subject meets the rather stringent notability criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Other than the books themselves, I can't find any evidence of third-party reviews, notable awards (minor awards dont count in WP:AUTHOR]] or movie adaptations, etc. My limited Spanish may, however, mean I have missed such sources in Spanish - but he doesn't look like he meets the notability requirements for inclusion in WP. Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What about WP:PROF? – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

- To fit WP:AUTHOR#1 "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors", see: he gets 7 pages in a book called "The fantastic stories in Puerto Rico and Cuba: theorical study and its application to several contemporaneous stories" pp. 81-87, his analysis of other authors being used in a footnote in two university press books [4][5], a dissertation in the university of Nebraska about Puerto Rico literature[6], one of his books in the bibliography of a Spanish literature course in a French university[7], in volume 30 of Review Interamericana he gets cited as one of the more famous Puerto Rico authors of the 80s generation[8]. At least two of his books have been published by the Ministry of Culture of Puerto Rico[9][10].

-Awards. One major award is listed in the article: the "Honors Certificate for Literary Merit and Contributions to Puerto Rican Letters" from the Puerto Rico society of authors.

Note: he asked for deletion because of the COI tag in the article, not because he wasn't famous. That tag is no longer there. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I find it amazing that anyone above could possibly be citing notability as an issue against having an article about this prolific and important author. Even a very cursory reading of the subject outside Wikipedia would show him to be a notable creative talent. I'm glad that my first experience of wanting to help with editing wikipedia was not as an introduction to my own page (MYOB) but simply an edit of a spelling mistake with the thought "Ooh, being able to do this is quite fun, if I ever get some time I must have a poke around", and now when I actually do have lots and lots of time with the thought "Where did all those articles go".

If trying to clean up my own article had been my introduction to editing then I doubt I'd have continued.

When I first came across Wikipedia several years ago I thought it was a remarkable idea and have since used it as both a reference and an enjoyable read to broaden my knowledge of both the important and the trivial. In the first AFD discussion I took part in I was pointed to the notability guidelines. However since I enjoy knowledge, I continued reading, the talk pages for those guidelines, the 10 pages of archived discussion, the general discussion of those guidelines elsewhere. After having read I learn that the nobility guidelines are not in fact the set in stone policy, that in fact they are the rather contentious result of a massive number of revisions that as far as I can make out have only ended up at the current revision through people arguing the same thing over and over again till reasonable people give up and get to tired to keep arguing it.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with deleting articles that have almost no informational content and that are not sourced and that no one has been easily been able to source after looking, after-all people with an interest in the subject can always add an article that does have informational content and is sourced if they ever feel so inclined. Deleting longer articles, that are true, that are properly sourced, that people have put time and effort into creating is much more deeply problematic. It lessens this great idea of Wikipedia to have people sitting in judgement on creative talents that have actually contributed to the sum total of human knowledge like some Kafkaesque auditing board, applying their own internal scale of importance and shifting the bar of that importance ever higher and higher.

What should be looked at is informational content, truth, verifiability. The whole notion of a notability scale is deeply flawed when applied to people who have actually created something.Amentet (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2010 (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.