Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Zamora (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. This is a tough one, and has been open nearly a month. Between BLP concerns and challenges with a potential merger target itself, even in a tight discussion- deletion is the course of action especially given the same issues have been raised in the prior AfD and while I note That it hasn't been improved does not mean it cannot be improved, there have been nearly 3 years and no indication of actual soourcing to sufficiently improve this. Star  Mississippi  03:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Antonio Zamora
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Things have not improved and we are now in the situation where this is looking more and more like it's going to end up in WP:FRINGEBLP territory except it does not seem that many have noticed his peculiar ideas. I am sympathetic to the concern that his early work might be notable, but I think we really need to have third-party independent sources about the man in order to write a biography of him. As it is, we just do not have that and none seem to be forthcoming. Maybe at some point some third-party biographies will be published which will help us provide contextualization. Until then, we really shouldn't be hosting such poorly sources biographies for obvious reasons. Previous AfD did not seem to deal substantively with the lack of sources independent of Zamora which is what we will need to do anything like a cleanup. I cannot find any either. jps (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Computing.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:PROF as before. If, as the nominator states, nothing has changed since the last AfD, then I don't see why my opinion or for that matter the outcome should change. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you found any sources that would allow us to write a neutral article on this character? Since there does not seem to be any way to make this article actually neutral or sourced to reliable sources, what recourse do you suggest? jps (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete As noted above, there is a lack of findable, independent third-party sources to demonstrate that he is notable enough for Wikipedia. Simply having published peer-reviewd papers and having patents does not automatically make a person notable, unless there are sources that show that they are siginficant in some form or fashsion. Paul H. (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep That it hasn't been improved does not mean it cannot be improved. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Judging from what happened after the last AFD, nobody was either interested in or could find anything to just that. That can be said of any Wikipedia article up for AFD. In addition, specifically how does this article pass general notability? Paul H. (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a fallacious argument unless you can demonstrate how it can be improved. jps (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 *  Keep Merge Notable per WP:PROF. Early work was highly cited. See original AfD discussion. However, doesn't meet WP:BASIC. In this case WP:BIOSPECIAL suggests merging into a broader article. In this case a new article on SPEEDCOP might be appropriate. BruceThomson (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps create a stub? I cannot find sources on SPEEDCOP as it is well outside my expertise. jps (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. A Merge was suggested but with no target specified. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete this person has some early articles (e.g. 1970's) on what today we would call "spellcheck" that were cited >100 times. His "consultant" business does not have visible academic output, and does seem to have drifted over into the non-scientific area of "psychics". I don't see enough for NPROF nor do I find GNG evidence. There do not seem to be independent sources for biographical information. Lamona (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd rather not close this like the first, AFD, as "No consensus". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some serious BLPFRINGE concerns here. He has two books listed, one is published by his own consulting company and I believe falls under self-published sources, and the second is to a publisher whose site seems dedicated to selling psychic reading ads complete with a page hijack ad consisting of a disembodied Ms. Cleo head floating across page content. Extremely uninspiring for sourcing purposes. --(loopback) ping/whereis 10:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment there are two questions here. (1) the Fringe concerns; that he has created a consulting company and self-published doesn't undermine what he did before, so if he was notable for his previous scientific career, he remains notable. Forget the fringe. (2) But for the rest, the reason everyone's disagreeing is that some people are using general notability, and others are extrapolating him from industrial scientist into WP:NPROF-space and judging his primary publications and influence of his work as evidence of criterion 1. I think it's illogical to deny NPROF to all who've done their science in an industrial sphere, thereby excluding from WP a lot of people whose work has changed the way the world operates, but who didn't get in the newspapers (scientists, even engineers, rarely do). If you're going to have NPROF, it mustn't be restricted to universities. On that basis I think he's a weak keep. Elemimele (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are right about the two elements of the discussion here. However, I do not think that he meets NPROF. That is because, although he had some moderately well-cited papers, he does not meet any of the criteria of NPROF. We have nothing that would say that he had a significant impact in his field, that he held a notable position, nor that he has received a major award. I just don't see it. Lamona (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have a point. That's why I put him down as a rather weak keep rather than a solid keep; I think he's very much borderline, so I'm not greatly surprised if others assess his impact less enthusiastically than I do. Elemimele (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Self-published references and small coverage from peer-reviewed papers several decades ago. I don't see anything we can salvage and the article doesn't seem to be at GNG even. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am not seeing anything to support meeting NPROF, which, right or wrong, is restricted to academics: people whose impact can be assessed through their scholarly or educational contributions. Non-publishing industrial scientists can absolutely be notable through their leadership in technology, product design, implementation, etc., but like fashion designers and architects and other creative professionals the only available way to document this with SIRS is through GNG. A handful of articles in IS and trade journals is not sufficient for NPROF C1a, and the evidence for C1b is similarly lacking, so we're left with GNG as our notability criteria and I don't believe he meets that either. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Delete . As said before, there is a lack of findable, independent third-party sources to demonstrate that he is notable enough for Wikipedia. Lack of notable poisitions, major awards, and any source indicating that he made any significant, long-lasting constributions to his field. Self-published publciations, average number and qulaity of peer-reviewd papers and articles in trade journals. Agree with above comments that he neither meets NPROF not GNG. Paul H. (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking second Delete vote. You already voted (above). Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 14 January 2023 (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.