Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alonso R. del Portillo (2nd 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 was Delete, for the lack of reliable sources beyond coverage of associated subjects, or other clear indications of notability. Tikiwont (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Alonso R. del Portillo
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was previously deleted at AFD and was recreated today. I speedied it as a CSD:G4 as the article was more or less the same as the one that was AFDed. The author asked me to reconsider as he had added additional references, so I have restored it and am listing here. I don't think the references really change much as the original deletion was on notability grounds and there has been no content added to explain notability. Delete. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 20:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. The article was not deleted because it was a poor article (that would be against the rules). It was deleted because the subject of the article is not notable. Indeed the only claim to notability is that the subject once was an assistant to a U.S. congresswoman. — BradV 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, One of the main complaints in the previous Afd discussion is that the material was unverifiable. It is now full of in-line citations. I know some of you may not like the idea of an autobiographical article, but it is not prohibited. I have gone through the article and have removed some things that I could not find citations for. Additionally, you will see that I was interviewed for the local PBS station regarding my involvement with Pedro Zamora and my work with Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen. Callelinea (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not often we get the subject of the article involved in an AfD, but since you're here, let's ask: What have you done that meets the notability requirements at WP:BIO? — BradV 20:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made a widely recognized contribution in the bringing of many persons in to the United States, such as the families of Rey Ruiz, Pedro Zamora, and over 15,000 other persons. I have appeared on television to speak on that issue. Additionally, I have written in the editorial columns in The Miami Herald. It was due to my work and of a co-worker in the Congresswomans office that the US government began to issue Public Interest Paroles to Cuban nationals. Callelinea (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any reliable third-party sources that mention this that we could use as references? Google News turns up nothing. — BradV 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Google News will only show articles in newspapers and magazines. Even though I would of expected maybe my editorials in the Miami Herald to of shown up. But what is not shown are my interviews, such as the one in my in-line citation with the PBS station in Miami. Callelinea (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But you said "widely recognized". That implies that there are more references than one interview on your local PBS station. — BradV 22:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And the mention in Judd Winick book on Pedro Zamora and in the Wall Street Journal story? Opps my fault, I forgot to put that one in. Callelinea (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete references cannot be verified- just a list of articles. NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but if that is your only reason to delete then you need to read Assume the assumption of good faith, which references are you claiming cannot be verified? Callelinea (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment see my reply on your talk page concerning independent verifiability of all sources, which this article lacks. Dreamspy (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, a resume of accomplishments, none of which satisfy notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, still non-notable.  Corvus cornix  talk  23:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for you to put your two cents worth.Callelinea (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dhartung. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A7, no assertion of notability (along with G4 as noted above). Moreover, the references tend to verify the lack of encyclopedic content and potential. This material would be wonderful in a family history, genealogical work or marketing bio/CV but this is not the place for it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Nick Graves (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also suggest WP:SNOW. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have noticed that several university professors have their own wikipedia pages that have less information and notability than this person. I dont understand the rush to delete this page of a person who is notable at least in South Florida. NancyHeise (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * strong keep, (and edit conflict in trying to post this, glad I'm not the only one who sees the use in this one) notability is not only asserted but amply referenced in multiple independent sources, which meets the foundation principle of notability. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mr. del Portillo says that he is notable because "Even though I would of expected maybe my editorials in the Miami Herald to of shown up."  That's a fragment.  And the "would of" and "to of shown" are just too, too precious.  This isn't the kind of writing that the Miami Herald or any other newspaper would publish, so it's hard to imagine that he's notable as a writer.  If he did indeed write for the paper, the editor must of (LOL!) had to clean up his prose. Qworty (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was writing "off the cuff". I am concerned that you did not state your reasons as to why the article should be deleted. Remember that your comments should not be "personal" but about the subject at hand. Callelinea (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing personal about it. The subject claims that he is notable as a newspaper contributor, yet his writing is not even on the high school level.  It's a cold, hard fact that no newspaper contributor who writes like that could possibly be notable as a journalist. Qworty (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is very inappropriate. We are discussing an article. Please read no personal attacks. — BradV 02:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack. He's questioning the del Portillo's assertion that he's a newspaper writer. Nightscream (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "too, too precious" is a slam and is indeed a personal attack. One need not demean the other party to make a point. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject may indeed be a fine person, and I have nothing at all to say about him personally. I am making an objective determination about a piece of writing that was offered in evidence of journalistic notability.  It is not a personal attack to point out, quite correctly, that that piece of writing is woefully sub-par.  It's ungrammatical, it's awkward, it doesn't belong in the Miami Herald, and indeed I challenge anyone to find the too, too precious constructions "would of" and "to of shown" in the Miami Herald or any other newspaper.  I'm not saying the guy's a jerk.  I'm saying his writing is ungrammatical--and the only reason that's relevant at all is because of the assertion of journalistic notability. Qworty (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming my "Noteworthiness" on my journalistic skills or of my being a writer, I only made that reference because someone stated that they got no google hits on my name. My notabilty has to do with my immigration expertise especially when it has to do with Cubans,especially when it has to do with Pedro Zamora; a topic I am an expert on.Callelinea (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The charge above (if it is one) of a personal attack doesn't much interest me. But some of the comments above on writing are silly. Like it or not, use of "of" for "have" is commonplace, does not obscure meaning, and is not a grammatical but an orthographic slip (one that happens to suggest a grammatical mistake). A comment above suggests that high-school students are better in their prose style than I had realized. And I'd be very surprised if the Miami Herald didn't employ copyeditors. &para; I still think the article should be deleted, but only for sensible reasons. -- Hoary (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't care if it's not prohibited, this article should never have been created and edited by its subject, and indeed, it should be prohibited to create one's own article. Putting that aside, the article indicates two things that Alonso has done: Being a senator's assistant, and assisting with the emigration of thousands of Cuban immigrants. Neither of those two things make him noteworthy, and he certainly isn't widely known, or been the focus of any news coverage of any historical event. Nightscream (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting that just 9 months ago you wrote this "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)" The article now has more references and now you think it should be deleted. I am particulary amazed because you were so outspoken for its inclusion a few months ago.Callelinea (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on that telling quote, Nightscream should not be pointing fingers about credibility and what's excusable, here or on the article's talkpage. This is not some eighth-grader's vanity article about what position he plays in pee-wee ball and that he's going to grow up to be president, this is a valuable, credited member of the Cuban-American community, which is the greatest success story in US immigration in 50 years, partially thanks to del Portillo. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There's hardly anything "telling" about the quote, other than I simply changed my mind after reexamining the article, and the issues involved. How you figure this impugns my credibility or excusability, I don't know, unless you think changing one's mind is some type of scandalous sin. Funny how I only learned about this AfD because Alonso himself asked me to participate in it, but now I allegedly have no business speaking here or a Talk Page because I didn't give the answer he thought I'd give. In any event, this will not affect my ability to speak here or anywhere else. As for your other comments, whether he is a valuable, credited member of the Cuban-American community, or the greatest success story in US immigration in 50 years, has no bearing on whether he is notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Nightscream (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, after careful consideration and some google-work, the strength of the keep arguments clearly outweigh the volume of the delete arguments, none of which cite an actionable reason with substance other then the G4 concern. Assuming the Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, etc., meet WP:RS and WP:V, which I believe they do, its time to WP:IAR, the subject more then meets the criteria for second and third party sources for WP:N. MrPrada (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I found one article with more than a trivial mention of del Portillo right off the bat from the Herald, although it is negative (noting he was supsended without pay by the Congresswoman for two weeks after he signed her name without authorization twice) and not currently mentioned in the bio. MrPrada (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Can anyone aside from User:Callelinea describe in one sentence how or where the text of this autobiographical article asserts the notability of its subject? Over half of the article text deals with his kinships, which while interesting, are not at all encyclopedic under WP:BIO (but would be of some genealogical interest in southern Florida and Cuba). The strongest assertion of notability I can find is From 1989-1996, he assisted more than 15,000 persons[4] with problems with the US government. Please note, over a 7 year period, taking into account weekends and vacation time, this would amount to dealing with 8 or 9 people a day, or one person per hour, which implies the mass processing of rather routine bureaucratic paperwork of some kind. While clearly, by ordinary chance a few of these people would have been famous/notable, his involvement would not be. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on. I don't see why it should be somebody other than Callelinea. If Callelinea persuasively explained in one sentence or three how the subject of his article is noteworthy, that would be OK. He's had a go above (or at the foot of this earlier version), but that didn't go down well; he's always welcome to have another bash at it. (My own instinct is that modesty dictates that one should not write this kind of thing about oneself, but what I've seen over the years at en:WP tells me that I'm terribly out of touch.) &para; Incidentally, this was the first time I'd heard of Zamora; his article is quite a hagiography. -- Hoary (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True enough for me, though I asked for input from others only because of the neutrality worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - subject is not notable. Reading the above convinces me people shouldn't write articles about themselves; they take it really personally in these situations. It is a re-creation of a previously deleted article to which nothing has been added conferring notability. Jack1956 (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Conflict of interest article. Notability is not inherited so while Pedro Zamora may be notable, the subject's relationship with him does not make the subject notable. Stextc (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Userfication is an option if this article is deleted, either to the author's user page or a subpage. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: seconded. -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not establish notability per WP:Notability (people). Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not established. Laudak (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2008 (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.