Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alonso R. del Portillo


 * 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. To Callelinea- Bring the article to deletion review after you find references in your trip to Cuba (but even then, the subject might not have sufficient notability). Sr13 04:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Alonso R. del Portillo

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable former Congressional aide and current genealogist related to marginally notable people. Corvus cornix 23:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability provided. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm baised I created the article. He is mentioned in the book about the AIDS activist Pedro Zamora. Is a well-known geneologist in the Miami area. Very influnicial conections in Florida politics. Is notable and well-known for his work in immigration matters and in geneology. Callelinea 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I see a well-sourced geneology, but no notability, in fact some sources don't even show what part of the article they pertain to. 74.242.184.198 04:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: interesting that the only contribution 74.242.184.198 has done is to vote on my six articles up for AfD.. Like I have stated something fishy is going on.Callelinea 04:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a template provided for pointing out apparent single-purpose accounts, spa. --Dhartung | Talk 10:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Generally Congressional staffers are not inherently notable, and the article does not assert that his involvement in genealogy is anything more than a hobby. (By the way, the anonymous user is entitled to participate in these AfDs under WP:AFD, which provides, Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Since User:74.242.184.198 appears to be providing legitimate reasons for deletion, I don't see anything "fishy" about their participation.) --Metropolitan90 06:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You see nothing fishy about the only reason he gives is not notable, nor do you aee anything fishy that his IP address was created and only used to comment on these six articles for delitions? what would make you think it would be fishy? can you be that dense?Callelinea 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA. Corvus cornix 16:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing how no one has explained to me why a IP address that is created just to vote on these six articles is not fishy.. I mearly asked what was a definition as to what would be considered fishy? But you are right he and others are not dense, just commenting on a subject matter without reading what I have written. Not to worry.. I will be placing all my articles for AfD and then I will not have to go through this process any more. I do feel it being motivated by some reasons that are not being spoken. Callelinea 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that Callelinea nominated every single article I have created, for deletion. The AfDs were speedy closed and Callelinea was blocked for one hour for disruption. Corvus cornix 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First off that is a lie.. I only nominated those articles by you that I felt merited deletion. And once this blows over I will re-nominated them or I will have someone else nominate them. Some of those articles had no independent sources. One was about a small town in France that nothing notable ever occured in it.. I do not think they are notable and If brought to discussion I believe it will be proven that they are not notable.. Yes I was blocked, but I feel it was unfairly done. And have told the person that blocked me my reasons for it. Callelinea 20:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which, I have told you, are not duping anybody. Circeus 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, how could I have been mistaken? You nominated every article I ever created except for one. Just get over it and move on, all right? Like I said before, I didn't nominate every article you ever created, just those genealogical articles which make no claims of notability. And please note that the AfD discussions are almost universally supporting my contention. And that ship has sailed, it has already been established by overwhelming consensus that every place in the world is notable. Corvus cornix 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not meaning to dupe anyone. If you bothered to read the articles and my reasoning for nominating them you would see that they merited discussion for deletian. But since you all assumed that I can not see further then my own AfD that it would cloud my judgement as to poorly written and sourced articles.Callelinea 02:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your articles are not at issue here. Mine are.. Yours will get their judgement in the future.. And I only put 5 of your seven articles up for deletion.. The other 2 were fine. You proved notability and they had sources.. But your other five are lacking. Callelinea 04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I'm sure when you decide to re-violate WP:POINT by nominating all of my articles again, you'll be blocked by another admin. I have nothing further to say on this subject. Keep up the disruptive behavior and you'll just cut your own throat. Corvus cornix 04:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, nothing demonstrating notability in either genealogy or politics. Accomplishment is not notability, and notability of relatives is not commutative. --Dhartung | Talk 10:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So even if everything in the article is true, even though it is sourced with books and articles, the subject is not notable? sorry now I am sure its a witch-hunt.Callelinea 13:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you even read WP:N and WP:BIO? Corvus cornix 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * delete, this appears to be part of a vanity series based on personal genealogy rather than notability. Abtract 13:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete, does not meet guidelines for notability ++Arx Fortis 14:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable. Rklawton 14:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with Rklawton. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree per nomination reasons.--Dali-Llama 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - While most of the six articles by this author that were AfD nominated should be deleted, I believe the subject of this one is noteworthy enough to keep. I worked extensively on the Judd Winick and Pedro Zamora articles, and del Portillo was indeed mention in one of the main reference sources I relied on for info. He is a public figure (albeit not a household name), and I believe noteworthy enough to have an article. Nightscream 16:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment On re-reading this article in the context of the others in the series, I have nasty feeling we have here the author of the series. It is clear that a genealogist is writing these articles about his family ... I bet it is Alonso R. del Portillo who has written the whole series. Abtract 16:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is my opinion, as well. Corvus cornix 18:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - non-notable docboat 02:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability not established; subject may be interesting and a good person but that is not sufficient. MKoltnow 03:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete. I'm not convinced he's that notable. Kripto 10:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Has anyone else noticed that the author of this article is the same age (47) as the subject of the article ... plus the article seems to have been written by a genealogist and lo and behold this article is about a genealogist? Amazingly both were born in Cuba and live in Miami, I make again the suggestion that the author and the subject are closely related, good friends or even one and the same person; perhaps this time he will tell us what the facts are? Beware Conflict of interest Abtract 21:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, and how many times will you mention the same thing over.. you already previously stated that. As far as I know the article is up on its merit or lack of them. Callelinea 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read Conflict of interest?Abtract 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have. Have you? Because it seams something personal you and Corvus cornix have against my 6 articles up for vote this week. You two seem to back to the articles continuesly to put more and more comments in.. I don't see that in any of your other AfD articles that you two are involved in do you guys put so much effort to get rid of an article.. am i mistaken? Callelinea 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you not think that writing articles about yourself, your father and your grandfather creates just a tiny conflict of interest? Abtract 21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If this really is Callelinea, I'm not surprised he has taken this personally. Having said that, if it's true, it's unacceptable and downright unethical not to have disclosed that, let alone violating the vanity rules.--Dali-Llama 16:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I take the AfD of any of the articles I created personally. It take away my time to work on new articles or of improving articles. I create articles that usally have something to do with Cuba, Cubans, and Cuban-Americans, something which I know lots about. Callelinea 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletions. -- Callelinea 14:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think in the interest in full disclosure, myself and other involved editors would appreciate if Callelinea could either confirm or deny that they are or are related to any of the articles in question. While it is not required, I think it would be in the interest of good faith and intellectual integrity. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Daniel if someone as yourself had asked that question at the begining of this process I would of been happy to answer that question.. But during this process I have felt that there has been a lack of good faith and intellectual integrity in the part of a few of the editors. So I will decline to answer your question and allow these articles to be deleted based on what you "editors" feel is fair. Callelinea 19:09, 6 July 2007 (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.