Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julieta Casimiro

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. L Faraone 01:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julieta Casimiro[edit]

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

Serious lack of WP:RELIABLE sources to indicate any kind of notability other than puffery and WP:FRINGE pseudoscientific nonsense. He iro 08:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of signficant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. None of the sources used even come close to meeting our requirements, and my own Google searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Article is a turmoiled mish-mash of pseudoscientific blither and puffery. Nothing worth salvaging or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Utter waffle from start to finish. Paul B (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was initially going to speedy this as a promotional article, but... the woman does have some claim of notability to her. I don't know that it's enough to keep, but I've found mention of her in a few scholarly articles. (Not including the BOMB article of course, which was written by a family member.) In them she's mentioned as an example of the shaman history and culture that still remains. It's enough to where she might and I stress might, be a weak keep as someone who is of notable enough influence in her area that she's cited in some scholarly texts. There aren't that many that I'm finding so far, hence the weak part. Now assuming that I can find enough to save the article for the council that she's a part of, I'd recommend that this redirect there instead. If not, then this might be a delete. I haven't quite decided yet. In any case, the article isn't nearly as bad as it previously was. I've pretty much nuked the previous format. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of those books is not a WP:RS, if it was it would not be published through bubok(an English language page here), see WP:SPS. He iro 10:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might want to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers, where discussion of the sources for the 13 Grandmothers "sourcing" has been taking place. As well as Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers . He iro 10:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually I had noticed the way the book had been published, but the thing is that the author would still be considered a potential RS since he does hold a doctorate in Latin American anthropology. It being self-published doesn't automatically mean that it isn't usable. Of course that doesn't mean that it's completely infalliable either. It just means that it can't be immediately discarded simply because it's self-published. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPS, where it says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Emphasis in original. He iro

Ah... my mistake. This would make it a delete from my end, then, unless I can work a miracle with the other article, which is looking to be ever more doubtful. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has anyone reached out to Wikipedia editors from their nation to see if there's non-English language sources we're not using and should be? I would imagine that it would be hard to find English-language references for this person, but it does not mean they're not deserving of an article, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the article or its references? 3 of the 5 current references are in non English languages. He iro 12:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption was that the nomination did not feel those were good enough, which is why some more specialized knowledge may be beneficial. Are you arguing that the non-English sources are not reliable enough to confer notability? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that the sources presented so far don't pass WP:SPS, WP:FRINGE or WP:RELIABLE. Have a look at them yourself, as you should have done before dropping a note suggesting we check non-English sources. If you can find sources in other languages that pass the relevant policies, then please present them.He iro 13:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I searched in Spanish and found nothing useful except the Shaefer book. There's more about this person in English, unfortunately all in inreliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, WP:SNOW?? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

!vote changed to neutral This particular member of the 13 appears to have more sourcing, in particular that article in BOMB magazine, and some of the spanish works. Article needs cleanup to be a biol and not a fringe pamphlet, but this may be a semi-notable fringe person. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sigh delete again Damn, I didnt noticed the Bomb article was written by her daughter. back full circle! Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just getting ready to ask you about that, haha. Also, the other Spanish language articles:

1.) Aparicio Mena, Alfonso J fails WP:SPS, published by a vanity press

2.) Jan M. Baud, Johanna L. Ypeij (2009) is a brief mention in a photo caption

3.) Zaragoza, Victor Gay (2011) is a one word mention in a work that wouldn't pass WP:FRINGE

4.) Schaefer, Carol (2009). La voz de las trece abuelas: Ancianas indígenas aconsejan al mundo. is the Spanish language version of the work described by you here as "that everyone involved with that publisher appears to be from the same family, so the notability and editorial oversight that would make this a reliable source may be suspect"

And counting the article written by the subjects daughter, that is all of the current references for the article. He iro 20:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is all very fringey, which is fine as long as there is some mainstream coverage. I was hoping that Google Mexico and/or Google Spain would give me some reliable sources with which to establish basic notability, but everything I see are blogs and non-reliable websites with names that translate to "Dimensional Portal" and such. And the single book seems to have some serious COI issues. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some evidence that could arguably be considered evidence of notability, but noot nearly enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2013 (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.