Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Rosas


 * 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. The 2 main sources noted here as proof of notability seem to confer notability on Rosas Farms rather than Al Rosas specifically, as he is not the main subject of either article.. The controversy, as poorly sourced as it is, offers no indication of notability either. Kevin (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This result was overturned at Deletion review/Log/2009 September 29. Result now No consensus. Kevin (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Al Rosas

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been a source of controversy, having been extensively edited by the subject or someone closely related as. It contained a significant amount of unsubstantiated fluff and claims without third party sources. At some point other editors added material about a controversy that the subject was involved in, at this point the COI editor and multiple IPs attempted to remove the controversy section multiple times. It has been protected for periods due to sourced content removal. None of the other claims have had sources added. Having removed the unsubstantiated claims, what is left is borderline for establishing notability i think. I highly doubt the article would exist were it not for the subject being self promotional or other parties attempting to discredit the subject. Today someone one again attempted to remove it all and place a threat for which they have been indefinitely blocked, but I think the community should weigh in on the state of this article which has never really contained a version that satisfies both notability and BLP concerns. A problem is that the controversies surrounding this subject are mostly based in the blogosphere and have not received significant mainstream coverage, nor has any lawsuit been actually been filed, leaving the claims as online allegations. WP:ONEVENT is also of relevance i think. Mfield (Oi!) 17:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Self-promotion, NN. B.Rossow talk contr 18:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:BIO.South Bay (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - and  desontrate notability.  A Google news search has more results with many behind pay walls.  COI editting and NPOV adherence need to be addressed but the subject does appear to be notable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as notability is satisfied per references provided by Whpq. (I created this article but only after deleting a previous version of it as spam - the spamvertisement concern is valid and this article, if kept, will need to be scrubbed to remove COI) Kimchi.sg (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Without the puffery, it's now largely an attack page. Which is much worse.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 *  Delete  Per Cuchullain, this article contains negatively-unsourced information and reads like an attack page. The controversy section is sourced to blogs and other unreliable sources. The IPs were correct in removing the sourced content; the controversy section is devoid of reliable sources and is a blatant violation of WP:BLP. The sources provided by Whpq are both passing mentions that do not establish notability. The other sources in the article are either passing mentions or press releases. This marginally notable individual fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - How do the Boston Globe and Ocala articles come off as "passing mentions"? The Boston Globe article is specifically about Al Rosa and his wife and farm.  There is no other topic.  Ditto for the Ocala article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I searched for "Al Rosas" in both articles but only found him mentioned twice in the Boston Globe and twice in the Ocala. After looking more closely at the sources, the sources do provide significant information about Rosas. If the controversies section is removed and not re-added, I will be content with a keep. Cunard (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at the sources again. I agree the current state of the article is deplorable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of coverage in Florida Trend (June 1, 2008), Boston Globe (November 2, 2008) and Ocala Star-Banner (October 8, 2007). Those articles, taken together, are definitely sufficient for notability. TheFeds 23:06, 28 September 2009 (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.