Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agustín Laje


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Agustín Laje

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not meet notability. Sources here are self-published, authored by the subject of the article himself or non-reliable. There are some COI/POV-pusher editors doing cross-wiki spam persistently on this, the Spanish article had to be deleted 4 times (first two after AfD consultation). MarioGom (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Laje is an important published writer and conferencist. It is notable enough for any reasonable standard. If we are talking about the ideas of a political scientist, his own writings seem to be a good place to start. The big objection I intuitively see is not procedural but political. This is censorship masquerading as WP policies. Frasznik (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither being a published writer or a conferencist is enough to met Wikipedia notability policies. If it is notable enough by any reasonable standard, you just need to find reliable sources that support such claim. With respect to your intuition, I would kindly ask you to keep it to yourself, specially since it is already a few editors with experience that have questioned the notability of this article, both in English and Spanish Wikipedia. --MarioGom (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Good faith is also a general principle of law, at least in civil law traditions. Censors can perfectly do their job on the basis of believing the material to be harmful for the prospective readers. Thus, even assuming good faith is not enough to easily dismiss a censorship accusation. My article is independent from the past Spanish versions, I am not the same person of the article, and the sources are reliable given that 1) career and personal political views of a political scientist cannot be dissociated as if they appertained to different universes, 2) Prensa Republicana is managed by Nicolas Marquez, not Laje. That means that such sources are NOT self-published. Frasznik (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Addressing the issue of Prensa Republicana, Nicolas Marquez is not considered an independent source per WP:INDY: Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. Being co-authors of a book that is central to Laje's career violates this premise of independence. --signed,Rosguill talk 19:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Prensa Republicana links removed and properly replaced. I doubt YouTube links can be supressed as they are primary sources. What is left to be done? Frasznik (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue at hand is demonstrating the notability of the subject through extensive coverage in reliable sources. Currently, the sources on the article are: Laje's Facebook page (not reliable), Razon + Fe (not reliable), YaTeCuento La Pampa (not reliable), La Nueva (possibly reliable, but a single abridged interview announcing a talk isn't particularly notable), Forbes Mexico (would be reliable, except that Laje wrote the article), YouTube (not reliable, wikipedia doesn't think very highly of primary sources), InfoBae articles written by Laje (not reliable), ACI Prensa (not reliable), Infonews (reliability unclear), La Izquierda Diario (not reliable), Cosecha Roja (not reliable), Disidentia (not reliable), Disidencias (not reliable), William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies Alumni Spotlight (not independent, not notable). While some of these sources may be sufficient for substantiating claims made in the article (for example, we can take Laje at his word vis-a-vis how he self-identifies politically; similarly, left-wing publications are sufficient for citing what left-wing critics think of him), they don't demonstrate notability of the subject.
 * In order to demonstrate notability, you need to either find more coverage in more widely-read, more neutral sources (I'm not super familiar with Argentinian news reporting, but based on Google results El Pais or La Nacion would potentially be acceptable Argentinian sources; an international publication would be even better), or demonstrate that Laje's work is heavily cited in academic literature (Google Scholar currently has *El libro negro de la nueva izquierda* sitting at 2 citations, not exactly heavily cited). signed,Rosguill talk 20:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  01:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete notability has not been demonstrated, sources cited cannot be considered independent. signed,Rosguill talk 01:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources are independent, the problem is that they do not come from Bolshevik sites or books, as Rosguill and MarioGom would like them to. Frasznik (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet notability as per WP:BIO --Jay (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2018 (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.