Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Isasi (second nomination)

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 of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosario Isasi (renomination)

• This article was deleted before and the current form comes from the recreated text. The person in question does not have enought publications to be notable. (I can't find the criteria at hand, please post here). I think it should be speedy deleted and protected. It is also possible vanity. Tony Bruguier 01:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• previous nomination

• KEEP. *sigh* I don't see why people are so obsessed with deleting this poor little article. Like I said before, beyond the fact that her bio speaks for itself in regards to how notable she is, Isasi is mentioned in the Bioconservatism and Transhumanism articles. --Loremaster 02:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Then maybe the article should include more of her bio. All I see is a stub that doesn't seem to assert much (if any) notability. Fan1967 03:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. no longer copyvio but still not notable. — AKADriver ☎ 03:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be notable enough, but needs major expansion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Here I found the criteria for people in academics. I don't think this persons passes the test. Tony Bruguier 04:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if this person is notable, the article should outline the reasons why. As there is nothing at this juncture, I vote delete. IrishGuy 05:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. With all respect, this is getting ridiculous. I totally disagree with Isasi's opinions, but she is at least a moderately notable bioconservative. This same article was voted on as keep less than two weeks ago. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosario_Isasi_2 It is an abuse of process to list it again so quickly. I undertake to put some more substance into what is now a stub as soon as I get a free moment. Metamagician3000 07:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is not a valid reason to call for a speedy keep. Please choose something else. Stifle (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Currently, IMHO, too stubby to justify retention. Simon Cursitor 07:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per previous AfD. David Sneek 08:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this substub does not assert her notability and her mentions in other articles only say she's a prominent person in her field but do not provide documentation of this from outside sources. GT 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, asserts some notability. --Terence Ong 12:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Assertion of notablility is not sufficient for an AfD keep - I think you're confusing it with CSD 7. But see below. --David.Mestel 16:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand - she seems notable enough. But most importantly per Metamagician - unless something has materially changed, the article shouldn't be re-listed - use DRV if you think the decision was wrong. --David.Mestel 16:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, Speedy keep as out of process. --David.Mestel 17:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Very few people voted in the last one and none of them supplied a particularly valid basis for keeping it. I personally have no misgivings about voting delete on its re-listing. GT 21:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  And what did the single person advocating deletion say as his comment? "nn". --David.Mestel 05:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • • Comment: That is not a valid reason to call for a speedy keep. Please choose something else. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes it is. SK3 is that it "doesn't qualify for AfD".. I don't think that this does qualify for AfD, as it's out of process due to a premature renomination. --David.Mestel 16:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as Wikipedia isn't a Who's Who. Brian G. Crawford 17:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Do you think we shouldn't have any biographies at all? --David.Mestel 17:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Nominated two weeks ago, result was to keep! What the hecks it doing back here!?! I'm assuming good faith, but it COULD appear that someone just wants rid and is willing to renominate as many times as it takes. Jcuk 21:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jcuk. --Loremaster 00:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that under regular circumstances it might have been too soon to renominate, but the last listing only had six commentors -- not nearly enough to set a precedent to keep or delete an article. And of those six, five were supporters, and four of those five think that AfD is a vote and that simply saying "Keep - notable" is sufficient. The fifth attempted to demonstrate the notability but offered no support for the claims. Like I said before I have no confidence in the last AfD and have no problems with it being relisted and supporting its deletion. GT 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with the result of the AfD, you should take it to DRV. --David.Mestel 05:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In any event, it's not a fair account. Moreover, it is uncivil to allege that some people "think that AfD is a vote". With respect, GT has no way of knowing any such thing about those of his colleagues in this project who voted (or whatever more pedantically accurate word is preferred) last time. I respectfully request that this allegation be retracted. Metamagician3000 07:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In not just that one but most AfD's I've seen people think that they are simply there to vote "keep" or "delete", when in reality the point is to arrive at a consensus (or come as close as possible). If you do nothing but show up and say "notable" (or "not notable" for that matter), that does nothing to show a skeptical person why this person deserves an article (which, by the way, I'd still like to see happen here).

As far as me retracting my comments, I don't see why I would. Of the five supporters last time, two did nothing but say "notable", one mentioned only something about her showing up on Google (as though that proves anything), one mentioned only two references to her on Wikipedia that, if you take the time to look them up, do not demonstrate her notability in any way, and finally you started to make some vague claims that, had I been around, I would have asked you to clarify. As far as I'm concerned, the other four voters did nothing but vote and added nothing to any kind of consensus-building. GT 08:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You should always assume that fellow wikipedians are valued colleagues who are acting in good faith and with due consideration for the benefit of the project, until you see clear evidence to the contrary. That is certainly how I wish to be regarded.

Personally, I have no brief for Rosario Isasi, and I don't think she is so notable that it would have been a travesty if the last AfD had gone the other way. However, I happened to know that she is a reasonably prominent spokesperson for certain views, and so I was surprised to see the article listed here. When I checked on Google, it threw up enough information to confirm that I was not imagining things, or distorting things in my mind. Accordingly, I "voted" to keep the article and briefly stated why, without overstating the point. At least some people who followed me also obviously checked Google to see not only how many hits she had (not all that many, actually) but also their quality, which is pretty impressive. There was, indeed, a process of consensus building, which is how this place is supposed to work. From my experience, a lot of people just vote "delete per nom" - I often do this myself if the nominator has said something that I think is clearly right after I've made some quick checks. There is no need to engage in extensive explanations unless requested. Concision does not in any way demonstrate a lack of understanding of the process. Metamagician3000 09:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Okay, but I did see evidence. Actions speak louder than words, after all.

2. "Delete per nom" is, of course, completely different from "Delete, non notable", assuming the nominator made valid points.

3. Her Google results don't seem any different from what would be expected of anyone in academics who happens to advocate a position. I'd prefer to see where her advocacy has sauntered out of academia and entered into a significant public discourse or some kind of other significant show of her notability. GT 10:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the comments or otherwise of the contributors to the other AfD are irrelevant - it was closed as keep, and if you want to challenge that, take it to DRV. Secondly, at least three of the five keep-ers made points (Metamagician, Royboy and Loremaster), and thirdly the only comment of the single delete-er was "nn". QED. --David.Mestel 16:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The first AfD is relevant since many are using its existence to justify keeping this article. It is very common to relist articles that do not receive comments by enough people to reach consensus. Also, unsupported and/or erroneous claims are not worth much. Saying "good google hits" is kind of pointless -- you should cite one or two of them, unless it's completely self-evident upon punching her name into Google which in my experience it was not. Finally, it should go without saying that I prefer both keep and delete "votes" to be accompanied by a justification (even if it's just agreeing with someone else's). GT 21:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Many of the firt Google hits seem to come from pretty reputable sites. But that is irrelevant. You are trying to use this AfD as a kind of "Appeal" from the previous one. USe DRV for that, that's what it's there for. And anyway, six people is enough (subject to DRV), when they're 5-1 united. --David.Mestel 06:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

They're all garden-variety academic sites, typical of what a search for any college professor would yield. — GT 08:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as the subject meets, as far as I can tell, criteria 1 and 2 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Anville 10:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A wacko who seems to take distopian sci-fi a bit too seriously, but a notable wacko. JeffBurdges 12:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • To the last two voters: Who are the independent sources per those criteria? And after this long drawn out discussion right above here, WHY would you simply write "notable"? GT 21:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep per Metamagician3000. Monicasdude 19:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete article does not assert notability, and subject does not meet WP:PROFTEST. Pete.Hurd 02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is fine as-is. In my opinion, I think the subject is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. — TheKMan^talk 20:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Uhh...is this a joke? — GT 01:10, 1 May 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.