Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zita Cabello-Barrueto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. It looks like adequate sources have been located. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zita Cabello-Barrueto[edit]

Zita Cabello-Barrueto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable academic. Mostly POV. Fails GNG, SIGCOV, etc. Nirva20 (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to either Center for Justice and Accountability or Caravan of Death for reasons cited in colloquy below with @Goldsztajn. The subject (Cabello-Barrueto)'s notability derives almost entirely as a plaintiff in lawsuit (Cabello Barrueto v. Fernández Larios, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2003)) -- not as an academic or author. Apologies for any inconvenience. Nirva20 (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agreed; non-notable, unsourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oort1 (talkcontribs) 07:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn -- The article as it exists is blatant (and outdated by decades) POV/OR: "She strongly opposes George W. Bush's stance against John McCain's anti-torture bill; Bush objects to the bill because it does not exempt the CIA. Her disdain for torture comes from her personal experience under Chile's CIA-initiated coup d'état". I don't know if the lawsuit itself is sufficient to establish notability. If so, then maybe the article should be the lawsuit not Cabello-Barrueto, whose extensive bibliography is here. Nirva20 (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nirva20: An article's lack of neutrality is not per se grounds for deletion. I don't see what the link has do with Cabello-Barrueto's bibliography; it's a publisher's blurb for a book she wrote. I've just linked five reliable sources, from multiple years, which contain significant coverage of the subject. This satisfies the WP:GNG/WP:BIO; if you wish to maintain an argument for deletion, you need to address why these sources do not establish Cabello-Barrueto's notability. FWIW, apologies if you are already aware of this, but if not, please have a read of WP:BEFORE. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We all make mistakes. I did a Google search but found nothing impressive.maybe because all the links are in Spanish. That's on me. But Cabello-Barrueto is not notable as an academic or as an author only as a plaintiff, by your own words. The article should be redirected to the lawsuit you cited. Nirva20 (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles linked contain SIGCOV of the person, this means she satisfies the WP:GNG. I did not say she's only notable as a plaintiff ("especially noted" were my words), but even if I did, that is irrelevant. We assess the content of sources, we question the reliability of sources, we examine the relevance of sources, but we do not get to choose *why* a subject is notable, the sources determine notability for us. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2024 (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.