Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvira Arellano

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. Kimchi.sg 12:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elvira Arellano

Elvira Arellano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable subject, no different from the millions of other illegal aliens L0b0t 15:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per my nomination. L0b0t 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. People who cause governments to act are notable, and the Mexican government asking the US to not deport her is causing a government to act. More sources would be nice, but it doesn't matter. -Amarkov blahedits 15:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Every single action taken by every single government in human history has been caused by people. How does this make one notable? L0b0t 16:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Keep it! -Chicaneo 07:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Previous comments: This article does not pass the 100 year test (future speculation) i.e., -- "In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?" Nor does it pass the 100 year test (past speculation) i.e., -- "If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today?" See WP:BIO for notability guidelines. I agree with LObOt, the subject matter of this article is no different from the millions of other illegal alien stories frequently heard about in the news these days. …Chicaneo 17:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment99% of the rock band articles, album articles, athlete articles, and politician articles would fail the same test. Edison 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep current event. Give the article time to develop. --evrik (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The place for current events is WikiNews, not Wikipedia. — Haeleth Talk 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you cite where that is official policy? --evrik (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, from the article: "On November 14, 2006, Saulito Arellano appeared before Mexican lawmakers." How many illegal immigrants do you know that have appeared before a national legislature? Plenty of sources written to show notability, and 100-year test is a suggestion, not an actual notability criteria. hateless 17:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Testimony before a govt. subcommittee, especially one of a foreign government, does not automatically confer notability. I have to go before the House Armed Services Committee several times per year. Should I get an article in the encyclopedia based soley on that? L0b0t 18:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment If you can find 30 articles about you in major national publications, then by all means you are notable enough for an article. Edison 19:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • If you are an illegal immigrant, yes. Illegal immigrants are among the least vocal groups ever of political consequence, for a great many reasons. For one to get such an audience is very notable. Besides, as I pointed out earlier, multiple independent sources of information is enough to confer notability per WP:BIO. And as a last point, the "foreignness" of a government is irrelevant, this is a world-wide encyclopedia. hateless 18:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment In this case, the nationality of the govt. in question takes the wind out of the sails of your argument, she is a CITIZEN of the country whose govt. she testified before. If she were to speak before the U.S. govt. then she would be an illegal immigrant speaking before a govt. and that would be a wee bit more notable. A Mexican citizen speaking before the Mexican govt. is an everyday event. L0b0t 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You're spinning. You might as well say she's a woman and they regularly testify before Congress, thus she's not notable. The point remains is that she is a member of a class of people who individually has rarely had an wide or powerful audience. She has two, the Mexican Congress and the North American news media. See the cited sources, again. hateless 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You've both got me spinning. She did not testify, her 7 year old son Saulito did. Saulito is a United States citizen who testified before the foreign government of Mexico on his mother's behalf. Both of these individuals are from groups that rarely have a wide or powerful audience: children & "illegal" immigrants. - Chicaneo 07:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very important event. Illegal immigration is one of the hottest political topics today. This woman is at the forefront of that debate and she has become a symbol. She came into the United States illegally and gave birth to her son here. While she is holed up in that church and sending her son to Washington and Mexico to plead on her behalf, there has been talk about whether U.S. born children of illegal immigrants should be automatically afforded U.S. citizenship. This woman is making history. There is something about her or illegal immigration in the newspapers at least once a week. At first, it was only in the Chicago papers, but now that it has been picked up by CNN, I think the article deserves to stay. If she is not notable, then I'd say at least 20% of the articles on people in Wikipedia also deserve deletion.Crazydog 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You are correct. At least 20% of the articles on people in WIkipedia do deserve deletion. WP:INN - the fact that there are other articles here that shouldn't be does not affect the merits of this individual case. — Haeleth Talk 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. She is the president of an political advocacy organization. That alone gives her notability. Her case has been given substantial coverage in national media, and, as was pointed out, she has become a symbol for the struggle of undocumented people for their human rights. For this, she has been both lionized and demonized. She may yet cause a change in laws or policies. As evrik said, give this story a chance to develop.--Rockero 18:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable advocate for changes in immigration laws. I found 30 independent articles about her in major national publications, and added 10 of the to the article's talk page. This degree of coverage means that she is in fact "different from the millions of other illegal aliens" contrary to what the nomination stated. Edison 19:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment thanks for those articles. I'm going to try and use them to expand the article. --evrik (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Current affairs don't belong on Wikipedia. Recreate the article later on if she actually turns out to be important in retrospect. For example, if her advocacy actually causes changes in immigration laws, she will deserve an article here; if she achieves nothing and is forgotten in six months, she will not. — Haeleth Talk 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable person; AfD is also not the place to play politics. -- AuburnPilottalk 21:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, Clearly meets WP:BIO for "achieving renown or notoriety for (her) involvement in newsworthy events". The "Google Test" yields 180,000 hits [1] This case has parallels in that of Elián González. The article could be more balanced, but deletion is not the way to get it there. -- Shunpiker 22:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as newsworthy but not encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news service or a political soapbox. Please use wikinews for writing current events articles not wikipedia. Quote from Wikipedia Help on Current Events: "Wikipedia is not a news service. That's the job of Wikinews. We shouldn't be in the business of writing articles about breaking news stories, unless indeed we can be very confident, as in the case of the September 11 attacks, that in the future there will be a significant call for an encyclopedia article on that topic.". Also, has been said above, being discussed by or testifying before a legislature is not automatically an sign of encyclopedic notability (nor is media coverage). I don't see any substantive claim of encyclopedic notability - she's one representative of a notable issue. The organization she is president of doesn't seem to be encyclopedically notable either. Bwithh 07:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a news story, but a biography. --evrik (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Take away the news story and you don't have much of an article Bwithh 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • This story is three months old. Not even wikinews is slow enough to consider that "breaking news". -- Shunpiker 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That statement is most certainly an incorrect exaggeration. hateless 04:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the current version of the Elvira Arellano article is much different from the one I voted on this morning. I based my vote on the (23:03, November 15, 2006 68.166.88.10) version. That version only had 5 paragraphs and contained 11 links to the same three sources, one of which was an editorial damning Ms. Arellano. That version did not assert importance nor significance and had been marked for speedy deletion earlier. Since my vote, the article has been significantly improved and I believe that the current version establishes that this is a watershed case regarding the civil rights of children and of immigrants. Elvira's son is 7 years old, is a U.S. Citizen, and his mother and primary caretaker is being deported. If that's not significant then what is it? If I could change my vote at this juncture, I would say Keep it! - - Chicaneo 06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bwithh. Other than the fact that she decided to try the unusual (but not at all unheard of) tactic of taking refuge in a church, this isn't even a newsworthy story. And it's not encyclopedia-worthy either way. --Aaron 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Chicaneo, evrik, and Edison. It's a very important event that could possibly change the way procedures like this are handled and also the fact that she has made national and interntional headlines over the past few months. --Moreau36 16:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all arguments above. The "no current events" people should take their crusade elsewhere. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, let's look at WP:BIO
The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person - Check, got 'em coming out my ears, per Google.
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated - Check, ditto as above. Wads of news stories. An editor's opinion of whether she's newsworthy or not doesn't count, actual amount of press coverage does.
Clearly passes WP:BIO, and article is well referenced to boot. I'd note that if WP had existed in 1955, Rosa Parks, would have been included. The comment "no different from the millions of other illegal aliens", besides being POV, is wrong, few illegal aliens get over 400,000 ghits. Speedy keep Tubezone 16:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is something of significance and users will come here looking for information. Badagnani 19:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to inform that User:Chicaneo has been asking people on talk pages to "come and vote". 1st. It's very bad form to spam talk pages asking people to participate on a discussion, and 2. AFD is not a vote. -- Drini 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I agree, it's bad form, and AfD is not a vote. But in this case I think it's a moot point as it's pretty clear Ms. Arellano meets the criteria for inclusion. Tubezone 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
CommentYes I have been contacting people. I have only contacted those who have a pre-declared interest in Mexican-American, Latino, or Hispanic issues and who are listed on one or more WikiProjects relating to these issues. This is the message I have left: "The Elvira Arellano article is up for deletion. Please vote by linking to the Arrellano article, then follow the links at the top of the page. Thanks. - Chicaneo" We are all busy, and those who are interested and/or knowledgeable about a particular issue need to be made aware that their attention is needed on a particular issue. This is not spam. It is communication and networking utilizing grass roots efforts techniques. I offer my sincere appologies to those who feel that these actions are "in poor form" Chicaneo 00:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Well you weren't actually soliciting votes in a certain direction (heck, you did vote delete originally, and a few weeks ago, I might have, too, despite the local press coverage where I am), rather, simply soliciting input. I just don't want admins suspecting meatpuppetry or that votes are not being made in good faith. Tubezone 03:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's reasonable. Sometimes (especially with minority issues) the word has to get out so that people who know about the issue can weigh in. --evrik (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Her story illustrates the complexities of immigration issues at this time. It could be linked to articles on immigration, civil disobedience, social impacts of the September 11 attacks. I think it passes the 100 year test. She may not be the first thing people search for when researching these issues, but her story will be of value to them. [[User:Wdr12 14:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)wdr12]]
  • Keep Subject appears to be a prominent activist. The article contains numerous sources, an indicator of notability. -Will Beback · † · 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
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.