Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Comité 1973


 * 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 no consensus defaulting to "keep". Despite two relists we haven't seen much engagement here, and the only !vote to engage with the content makes a fairly reasonable argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

El Comité 1973
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sockpuppets by Meneses Monroy (see its deletion discussion), with only few edits, have created machine translations of this exact same article on multiple wikis. frwiki editors have already unmasked the IPs behind. There are no third-party, non-user-generated sources anywhere to be found. And the spammers are now trying to smear anyone who dares unmask their stratagems—the latest they did was attempting to impersonating me. Born2bgratis (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree with nom, a lot of primary sources in the references. Delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

KEEP

This user Born2bgratis has made a lot of vandalism. An admin of the german wikipedia has declared the actions of this user as vandalism, look here. This guy Utilizaire:Born2bgratis and this: User:Fmarioivan, most likely a sock puppet account, (or two people coordinated to destroy the same neutral items), they have the same announcement. Born2bgratis says in his user page: "English: Welcome! I’m a user from Mexico. I’m attracted to free software communities because of their spirit of collaboration, and that very same thing lured me to Wikimedia, so here I am Face-smile.svg. I collaborate mainly in the Romance-language editions of Wikipedia and Wiktionary, but I also edit here and there sometimes." And Fmarioivan also says: "English: Welcome! I’m a user from Mexico. I’m attracted to free software communities because of their spirit of collaboration, and that very same thing lured me to Wikimedia, so here I am. I collaborate mainly in the Romance-language editions of Wikipedia and Wikidata, but I also edit here and there sometimes. (Feel free to translate this text to your language. Thanks.)"

You can compare their user pages Utilizaire:Born2bgratis and User:Fmarioivan. Compare their user pages and actions and you are going to see vandalism.

The admin Emu at wikidata has already told this guy Fmarioivan / Born2bgratis, that "Deleting valid sitelinks without a very good reason can’t be tolerated and may result in blocks. Look at here.

You can see the actions of these users at 20 july, attacking the item El Comité erasing neutral links, the links to wikipedia, as if the articles were already deleted, but they weren´t, look here. He uses speedy deletion, even when it is not the case for that, and has already deleted a lot of neutral items, photograps, wikipedia articles... Thanks for your attention. --AYSO60 (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. The discussion should be focused on the subject, not the users. I see good sources. For example, the 1st one is perfectly valid. I can see secondary sources, like this one: https://books.google.com/books?id=EwsiEAAAQBAJ and this one: https://books.google.com/books?id=MkfmDwAAQBAJ The subject has more than 20 publications. Therefore, I don't see any good reasons to delete it. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * LMAO, you didn't even bother to read a tiny bit of what you linked, did you? Those links are not real books. These are just the kind of "books" you could create with PediaPress, by scraping Wikipedia content directly. So no, those are not "good sources," because Wikipedia doesn't use Wikipedia itself as a valid source. Born2bgratis (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch about the books. The text doesn't match the WP articles exactly. It was probably rephrased using AI. However, I will not change my vote because there is no prove that the subject has anything to do with the fakes. Maybe somebody is pretending to damage the subjects reputation. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) nobody is trying to suggest that the entity spamming Wikipedia and the one creating fake books are the same, and 2) if anyone is trying to smear somebody's reputation here is said entity spamming Wikipedia, which has impersonated me, as seen above. Born2bgratis (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  05:14, 5 August 2021 (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.