Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezequiel D. Salinas


 * 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 keep. WjBscribe 02:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ezequiel D. Salinas

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

State district judge of some local notability, no real importance established. Thin sourcing. Dhartung | Talk 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 
 * Keep per 25 years on the bench and being a Hispanic elected official at a time when that was relatively rare. Newyorkbrad 00:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not sure how 25 years is remarkable. Second, being "state district judge" in Texas is the equivalent of being one of several county judges elsewhere (there are 437 state district judges today). Third, it's in Laredo, not (say) Houston. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Comment. I actually wonder if there is any notability to be found in his LULAC presidency, since that is certainly a notable organization. I don't have the time to really look into that right now, so I thought I'd mention it in case someone cares to beat me to the punch.  Mwelch 02:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I see 4 assertions of notability, his time on the bench, his advocacy of civil rights/hispanic issues, his presidency of LULAC, and the reference to a published article on him. I think that between all these he meets the notability threshold. -- Monty845 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep as far as notability goes., but much or all of the article is  admitted copyvio, see the article talk page. The ed. justifies it as saying he gave credit, which he seems to have confused with getting GFDL permission. DGG 04:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Laredo Morning Times article and our article seems sufficiently reworded to be non-copyvio. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 07:29Z 
 * Keep but needs a complete rewrite; as it stands it does seem a pretty clear copyvio (the article doesn't seem to have been rewritten at all, just to have had some sentences deleted) -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  12:34, 18 April 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.