Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Antonio Rosselló Nevares

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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Antonio Rosselló Nevares[edit]

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

(Auto-?)biographical puff piece of a minor academic and upstart entrepreneur. Has previously been created under several different titles (Ricky Rossello, Ricardo Rossello) by a sequence of single-purpose accounts (Ericrodz (talk · contribs), Futurex (talk · contribs), Adrianagirlie (talk · contribs), Raulserrano (talk · contribs)), this time Researchpr (talk · contribs)). Several previous deletions under A7 or Prod. No convincing grounds for notability. Academic work is minor; a postdoctoral research associate with a number of respectable publications, but comes nowhere near WP:PROF standards; article cites routine participation in an academic conference as if it were a notable achievement. Entrepreneurial work seems to have little or no substantial outside coverage; what is cited in the article would certainly not justify standalone articles on the companies he is said to be involved with. Finally, he is said to be active politically and in journalism, but there's no notable political career (never held an office or ran for one, merely some speculations that he might do so in the future, being the son of a notable local politician in Puerto Rico). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as spam despite partisan canvassing. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by author of the article: I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and the author of the biography on Ricardo Rossello and could not help but add my commentary – I strongly believe that the reasons for deletion are weak and unfair. Further, I think that the guidelines provided for biographies provided by this site are useful but some individuals, such as Ricardo Rossello, have careers that span several different fields and mechanical reference to certain guidelines for certain fields is easy but not necessarily relevant or appropriate.

I have tried to provide a succinct but well researched and referenced article and I believe it meets the three core content policies of having a neutral point of view, verifiable and no original research. The reviewer speculates that the article is autobiographical, which it is not. I am not a relative or friend of Rossello, nor am I him. I wrote the article because I have met Rossello and have heard him give several speeches and have been reading his column and listening to him on radio for years. I am very impressed, as many are in Puerto Rico, with his insights and I was very disappointed to have read that his biography was removed. I do not see the relevance other than for innuendo that there have been other bios created and by single purpose accounts. I am not any of those other users or know who they are.

Part of what is lost in the comments by the reviewer is that Rossello has impressive achievements in a combination of three arenas -- as a researcher, entrepreneur and as a political commentator. This combination is not found and does not fit well into any one category that the reviewer mentions. The reviewer discusses the lack of a political career. That is irrelevant to his notability. I wasn’t presenting him as a politician – he has worked on campaigns, been a delegate for the Democratic party but above all else, he is a very well known political commentator in Puerto Rico. The fact is that this fellow is on radio twice per week on one of the most listened to drive-time radio shows and is a regular writer of op/eds (every two weeks) for one of the largest papers in Puerto Rico, El Vocero. It is a fact that there is speculation about him running for various offices, which is interesting and I thought it should be mentioned – that was not the principle reason for his being notable. Again, he is notable for his commentary and analysis, which is not addressed by the reviewer.

Second, Rossello is an entrepreneur. I would like to point out that the correct word is start-up, not upstart. I think that the article should not be deleted and readers should have the chance to evaluate the merits of the company’s that Rossello has started. More importantly and almost by definition, early stage companies may not have much coverage. I for one believe, as would many in the biotech field, that the focus and products of Prosperous Bio are in a very important area and could have huge potential to save lives.

And finally in the field of science, it is impressive that a researcher has an article on such important and new fields of research as intercellular communication and tissue regeneration on the cover of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Cell-to-cell communication is considered a pioneering field and as Rossello and his collaborators suggest, could overcome some of the difficulties we are experiencing in regenerative medicine, especially in three dimensional tissue, such as bone. As the Puerto Rico Daily Sun, the major English language newspaper here in Puerto Rico, reported on August 9, 2009, his research “is causing a stir in stateside scientific circles.”

Perhaps I have not done a good enough job as an author in presenting the biography of Rossello, but I am truly astounded by the targeting of this biography by this reviewer and others. I have reviewed the many guidelines that are provided on this site and I have reviewed dozens of biographies on this site and I feel that this individual’s career meets and exceeds the guidelines as applied on the site for notoriety. Although I have been a reader of Wikipedia for a long time, I am clearly new as a contributor. Although I am very impressed with the clarity and quantity of the guidelines provided, they are guidelines and are meant to help with the majority of situations. However, the guidelines need to be utilized differently when evaluating the biography of an individual who covers several fields. Careers are unique and I think that this individual has an extremely interesting background in a combination of fields that may not be addressed in the guidelines. Researchpr (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)— Researchpr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep-The subject of this article fulfills Wikipedia's notability requirement in many fields, including his participation as an active politician-one of the four most prominent politicians in Hillary Clinton's successful primary campaign in PR (see multiple mentions and photographs in "Te Quiero Puerto Rico", ISBN 978-1-60484-744-4, a book that chronicles that campaign) and his appearance, along with three other politicians (José A. Hernández Mayoral, Democratic State Chair Roberto Prats and then Senate President Kenneth McClintock) in the campaign's final TV spot. He did run in a competitive primary election where hundreds of thousands voted and elected him as a Democratic National Convention delegate from the Bayamón Senatorial District on June 1, 2008. He js also notable as a political analyst, both in PM drive-time talk radio islandwide, as well as in frequent newspaper op-eds, and as a scientist and entrepreneur. His notability extends to paparazzi-type photographs in Puerto Rico dailies' social pages. Pr4ever (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Principally because he's a rising star in politics[1][2] the press is clearly interested in him. Eudemis (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can not speak of his political exploits personally, other than what I can read in the references provided(which are reputable ones). I can however attest to his scientific ones. He has been featured in several high profile journals, some of which have been cover articles. He has also been invited to speak on stem cell reprogramming in several world renowned conferences. I know this because I used to work with him, and he has been outstanding in his own work as well as with others. He is very brilliant and creative. Here are a few articles I found: [3], [4]IoanOpris(talk) 16:04, 6 July 2011— IoanOpris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- He publishes stuff. Every academic publishes stuff. He goes to conferences. Every academic goes to conferences. He does his job. I have no reason to doubt he's good in his job, but these are not grounds for notability in Wikipedia terms. Notability criteria for academics are laid out in WP:PROF; I don't see how he meets those. And if he is so notable, either in the academic or in the political fields, how come it's only single-purpose accounts with an obvious agenda of glorifying him that have ever shown an interest in editing his article? There's some astroturfing going on here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment from the author of the article: I think your comments should be held to the same standard as in articles. Rather than discussing his notability you are resorting to a discussion of who has made comments and providing incorrect information. I just looked at who has made comments above -- you are absolutely incorrect. I suggest you be a bit more careful before you make false statements and use the word "only". As explained before, I am a new user (single-purpose accounts) because an article appeared in Caribbean Business recently that the biography of Ricardo Rossello was taken down from Wikipedia. I felt strongly this was a mistake and maybe an unfair political "hatchet job" and that got me involved in writing my first article. Other individuals who have made comments do not appear to be doing anything inappropriate despite your statements. You also never addressed my point that this person is involved notably in several different areas. Being very accomplished in several fields, in my view, can be as important as being highly accomplished in one field. Researchpr (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)— Researchpr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Hahah, you mean this notice? That's a good one. It basically proves what I was saying, there is a capaign, and you are part of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More campaigning: [5]. This one is nice too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment from the author of the article: Yes that is what I saw in Caribbean Business and that is why I took the time to write a new one. Campaigning would suggest that this was all controlled by one person, which it isn't. Again, I suggest you write your comments to a higher standard of verifiability and intellectual rigorousness. Researchpr (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)— Researchpr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and salt, fails prof, politician, and GNG. Nothing significant in lexis/nexis. The canvassing and history is troubling. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the deletion and recreation history got my backhair up, the sources cited by Eudemis above have convinced me that this is a public figure in Puerto Rico worthy of encyclopedic biography. We can nitpick about whether he fulfills this narrow guideline for politicians or that narrow guideline for academics, but the bottom line is that there are cases to be made on both fronts, and the sum of those cases amounts to this being the subject multiple, independent, published sources and meeting Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Carrite (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is mostly promotional POV. Much is disingenuous, some borders on dishonesty. Examples follow. Article paints a very distinct picture of Rossello as an established researcher, but he is really a post-doc in the lab of E. Jarvis. (A post-doc position is what one normally undertakes in biomedical fields before applying for the entry-level academic position of Assistant Professor.) Article says he is a researcher with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (an extremely notable achievement, which by itself would essentially ensure notability), but this is false. The way in which HHMI works is a little unusual: It is only the lab head, Eric Jarvis, who is the HHMI investigator. His staff, post-docs, and grad students are not HHMI investigators and are not entitled to use this designation. Next, the article frames the paper on Connexin 43 essentially as research that he himself led, but this is also problematic. It is easy to see from PNAS that the work was done in the lab of David Kohn at University of Michigan, presumably where Rossello was either a grad student or postdoc. (Kohn is listed as corresponding author, not Rossello.) Article makes something of a production that Rossello has presented work at a conference, but this routine academic activity, even for post-docs, an not in any way notable. The realistic assessment is this: (1) with regard to WP:PROF, Rossello is an early-in-career researcher, with 2 published papers to his credit and a WoS h-index of 2, (2) he very well could become notable in the future, but he is far from it at present, and (3) the level of puffery is concerning because is very likely to mislead those who are not familiar with the norms of biomedical research. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, after striking my prior !vote. Agricola44 makes a good case that he fails prof, and I think he clearly fails politician, but I agree with Carrite that Eudemis's sources take him to the bar under GNG. We will have to cut this way down to just a paragraph or two. If there are no objections, I'm willing to give that a go later today or tomorrow, depending on how things go. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from author of the article: I have shortened the article as suggested in the above comment.Researchpr (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note from a concerned editor. I have corrected misleading information in the lead-in, as described above. Agricola44 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral - Ricardo Antonio Rosselló Nevares sniffs of a typical academic to me. Normally, I am open minded, but since Ricardo appears to have been active in editing the page, the fact that the page still fails to clearly indicate why he is notable suggests that he is not sufficiently notable at this time. Starting a company, publishing some articles, or being the son of a notable person does not make him notable. Wxidea (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC) --- After reading Carrite's comments, considering Ricardo's political activities and election, and the inherently interesting position of being both a scientist and politician, I change my position to 'neutral' with a slight bias towards keep. Wxidea (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is not in the least a typical academic; he falls well below that bar. I find 5 hits on Google Scholar with cites of 13, 6, 4, 2, 1. We would normally require over 1000 cites to attain notability in this highly cited area. The subject is an academic beginner now. He may achieve more later but at present he is nowhere near the level required for academic notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

What's your take on whether he meets GNG? I think we're pretty much agreed on the issue of PROF. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he passes GNG either. There are just two article from 2010 on him saying that he does not intend to seek political office. We don't have articles on politicians who don't hold office. There is also the explicit public canvassing for an article on him in Wikipedia noted above. All in all, a highly suspect BLP that does not attain any category of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. He's apparently not actually held any notable political office before. As for GNG, two sources are not generally considered sufficient. It's pretty clear that this page is being used as a tool to promote Mr. Rossello's career and potential political advancement. The question is whether this misuse will be permitted to continue. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yet another note from author: Again, I suggest that people providing comments use the same standard that is provided by this site for writers of articles. Statements suggesting that this is part of a campaign or that Rossello is me are simply not true. I disclose my identity on my user page and I am not Rossello or related to him. Nor do I know anyone who has written on this site. Also, as I have stated before, to judge Rossello as only an academic or only a politician is not reasonable. He has made strong contributions in four areas -- research, entrepreneurship, politics (note I did not say as a politician) and as a political commentator. I believe that to have achieved the accomplishments that he has in four arenas is noteworthy and significant. Many of the comments above focus on one piece of information or one field. I suggest that we look at the entire set of accomplishments. I also sense an unfair bias in some of the comments against someone with a famous father. Of course that is not sufficient for inclusion, but let's not blindly ignore it when it can be relevant. For those who have studied politics and particularly in Puerto Rico, it is very relevant. Ricardo Rossello has incredible name recognition, grew up being involved in campaigns and rightly or wrongly has strong supporters and non-supporters as a result of his family. But again, Rossello should not be judged on just one dimension. Researchpr (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to admit, Rossello is not notable for academics or politics taken alone. There's no policy for pulling together a bunch of non-notable activities in different fields and then somehow pronouncing the collective result to be "notable". That seems to be what you're arguing for. Instead, such cases normally default to GNG, but the problem is that there are only a few local news sources, which doesn't satisfy the sourcing requirements. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

More concerns. After taking another look, there are even more issues of concern. The "Connexin 43" paper now has 3 citations, the paper's reference information, a link to the paper's abstract, and a link to the journal's table of contents. This is highly misleading to most readers. The sourcing for Auctoritas Labs (which is really just a web page) is a dead link. The article is full of WP:OR, like where he went to high school, etc. I'll stand-down for a short period of time in deference to those proponents who are invited to correct all of these issues. If they cannot, I'll edit the article down to only that information that is verifiable and not misleading. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, but AFD isn't cleanup. If the article is kept, it will have to be stripped to just what the reliables sources say, so it will likely just be a stub or short paragraph. I'm committed to that, and will be glad to help you in that effort. If it's not kept, it will all go aways anyhow, and that's why I haven't cleaned it up myself. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both agree in principle. My concern is the effect that the factually misleading content has on this AfD. So, I think in this case, it will be somewhat important to clean-up before the debate is out. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

By all means, be bold! If anyone objects, they can revert, and your version will still be in the history for consideration. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. The analyses presented above by several editors, specially Agricola44, about his profile as an academic and as a politic are very accurate in that he is not up to par with what is expected by WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN, but it is also true that he meets WP:GNG by the amount of notes available at the article and also additional ones (of the same tenure) that I was able to find online. Personally, I think that the coverage he receives is undue, and mostly fueled by the fact that he's the son of the ex-Governor of Puerto Rico, while other individuals with the same profile wouldn't receive so much focus, but as far as Wikipedia's guidelines go he does manage to scrap notability. Also, I'm very weary of considering the sources as "local", if anything because of cultural differences between Puerto Rico and the United States, as well as between Puerto Rico and other Caribbean countries, despite of its political status - frankie (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the subject may be a son of a governor of Puerto Rico, notability is not inherited. The consensus so far in this AfD is that the subject does not meet WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN. The fact that the proponents of the article have advertised in the media [6], which also includes an implied attack on one of Wikipedia's most respected editors, for people to support the BLP makes me suspect that some of the support for the article may be driven by public relations interests. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment, I've just trimmed the article and tried to make it more neutral. The article may have been part of a PR campaign, but that's not really relevant to this discussion, I think. We can check the contributions of editors to look for SPAs.... --Nuujinn (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you have done a good job. But the only possibility remaining for notability is less than a handful of newspapers articles speculating if the subject will enter politics. That really isn't enough. An article may be appropriate when he gets elected to a significant position. Also, in view of the relationship between the ruling class of Puerto Rico and some sections of its media, these articles may be the result of the same PR machine; there is a doubt whether the sources are independent of the subject. I read this BLP as a PR stunt. Wikipedia should not host it. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. In regard to "Also, in view of the relationship between the ruling class of Puerto Rico and some sections of its media....", can you point to some information on that linkage (I'm just curious, I don't know much about Puerto Rico)? It seems to me that the four articles speculating on his political ambitions are one aspect, but then there's the McClintock book (which I don't have, so I cannot assess it). The comments in the notes which I removed do not weigh much either way, as they suggest that the coverage could just be passing mention in photos, or something more substantial. But in general, I'm still thinking keep, but I readily acknowledge this is a borderline case, and that there is merit in both the keep and the delete arguments. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I can't point to a link for you; my impressions come from reading the odd media article. The mentions are indeed only in passing and the BLP seems only of local interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I bought and read the book on the Democratic presidential primary and on page 144 it mentions "the final TV 'get out the vote' spot in which Hernández Mayoral, Prats, Ricky Rosselló and McClintock speak out". The two photos of Hillary's motorcade on pages 145 and 147 show Rosselló prominently standing elbow-to-elbow with Hillary to his immediate right and McClintock to his immediate left. You don't get a speaking part in the final TV spot or to stand for hours next to the candidate in her final campaign activity if you're not notable, at least in PR! Pr4ever (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a quote from the text of the book showing significant coverage of the subject? Mere mention of the subject and a couple of photos of a motorcade in which the subject appears aren't enough to contribute to notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the book is not indexed, and I'm not planning to re-read a 198-page book to find every mention of the article's subject, in the discussion of the final days of the campaign, there is a paragraph on page 145 that states in part "miles de puertorriqueños veían repetidamente el anuncio final de 'get out the vote' en vow de Hernández Mayoral, Prats, Ricky Rosselló y McClintock'" Pr4ever (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have just added requested citations regarding his first concrete foray in elective politics. In addition to being featured with then Senate President MacClintock on the pro-statehood side, and former Senator Roberto Prats and former PDP gubernatorial candidate Jose Hernández Mayoral on the pro-commonwesalth side, by the Clinton campaign for her final TV spot, the campaign chose him to lead the Hillary Clinton slate in the Bayamón district ballot, opposite Sen. Ríos, the chair of the all-powerful Senate Government Affairs Committee, who was chosen to lead Barack Obama's slate. The Rosselló-led slate won the district by a wider margin than Hillary's islandwide margin. His positioning on the ballot and his selection along with MacClintock on the TV spot and standing side-by-side Hillary in her hours-long get-out-the vote final motorcade or "caravana", is proof (to whoever knows and understands Puerto Rico's unique political culture) that notable third parties recognized Rosselló's vote-getting capacity. Pr4ever (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above, and see WP:RS for WP criteria for notability, ballot positions and standing beside someone notable aren't really criteria. --Nuujinn (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do I now understand correctly that we're down to arguing notability on the basis of who he was standing next to in a picture? Pr, I'm afraid this argument is just special pleading, especially the part where you say that this could only be appreciated by "whoever knows and understands Puerto Rico's unique political culture". I think the truth is that this AfD boils down to whether we believe he is notable for some speculation in local Puerto Rican media that he might run for office. Agricola44 (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Remaining unsourced and/or misleading information now removed, including several statements that were fact-tagged. Article is now an objective and factual (sourced) description of the subject. TBD whether still considered notable. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I was only contributing additional facts that suggest that Hillary Clinton and her handlers did consider the article's subject a notable person and sought to profit electorally from his notability. In politics throughout the United States, presidential candidates' media events are ever more staged. Who introduces a candidate and, yes, who stands beside them, are decisions that are thoroughly discussed and decided in such a way as to augment a candidate's possibilities. On page 121 of the book, there is a very well-crafted photo of Republican House Speaker José Aponte, President Clinton, Senator Clinton, Chelsea and Democratic Senate President McClintock. Do you really think that there is not a political reason for them to appear in that particular order? Many Kremlinologists can tell you that who stood where on the wall overlooking Red Square had great significance in analyzing who wielded power in the USSR. While I would never claim that appearing in a photo determines who is notable, I would suggest that the reason the article's subject was chosen for the GOTV final TV spot, for positioning in the all-important final caravan, as evidenced in the photos, and for placing him at the top of the delegate slate in the Bayamón senatorial district presidential primary ballot is because Hillary Clinton and her handlers did consider him notable, a factor we should not entirely overlook in this difficult process of debating this particular subject's notability. That's all I meant to say with my comment. Pr4ever (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this line of argument is that it is "notability by association", nothing more than claiming WP:INHERITED. I assure you it was far more important for Rossello to stand next to Clinton than the other way around. And I think the fact that we're now reduced to a debate over such an ephemeral one-time event is extremely telling. Agricola44 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep as per Carite, Nuujin, and GNG, says this Grognard taking a random walk through science-related AfDs. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 02:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was intending on closing this discussion, but after reading the article, the sources, the arguments here, and doing some looking up myself, I think that I hold too firm an opinion to do so without prejudice. I should point out that I had never heard of the guy before I came to AfD today! I feel that he does not meet the notability criteria (either the subject-specific ones or the general criteria), and cannot find the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Speculation about whether he would or would not run for office is not enough (he has not held office), being a researcher is not enough, etc etc. This seems to be a case of non-notability in several areas, but that does not add up to notability overall. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think in these discussions on notability that the press gets to decide by how much ink they spill covering him and I think they've decided. [7][8]Eudemis (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those, the first one is about his wish to enter politics, it is not even his candidature announcement, let alone him actually being elected to a position - and people saying that they would like to enter politics is not enough to meet notability (and there is nothing else in that article about any other aspects of his life); the second one states that he was recognised as "a young agent of innovation" at the MIT Global Start-Up Workshop. However, the Workshop has no mention on Wikipedia that I can see, and the article gives no names for the people who form the workshop, so we cannot really judge how notable or influential they may be, even if President Clinton said that the forum "plays an invaluable role to harness the power of innovation, and resolve the most pressing problems in the world." As such, I cannot see that these two sources are sufficient to show that Nevares meets the notability criteria. Someone saying that they might run for political office is not sufficient, and neither is a group (who may or may not be notable as Wikipedia defines it) recognising him as "a young agent of innovation" (especially when we have no idea who is in this group) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One only has to read the article to see the rather glaring lack of notability: A postdoctoral researcher, does not meet WP:PROF. A wannabee politician, elected delegate to a party convention: does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. No evidence either that he passes WP:GNG. After all the recreations, I agree with Xxanthippe: salt. --Crusio (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rossello may not meet notability guidlines for any field but he has been covered enough in media articles to be generally notable. If we delte the article someone else will come along, recreate it, and probably do so in a way that is very unbalanced and misleading. If we leave the edited, paired, sourced and straight-forward article we will have one that covers the basics and avoids uncalled for speculation. Rosello does not control the media of Puerto Rico, so their mention of him is not soutrces he controls. If he did control the main newspapers of Puerto Rico he would almost certainly be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2011 (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.