Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Héctor Andrés Negroni


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Héctor Andrés Negroni

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This man had a nice military career, had some usual medals, but, with all due respect, he's not notable. The article was commissioned by the subject himself to a wonderful article-writer (and thus, it's a well-written article). It appears that no reliable source cites this man more than en passant. The main references used are self-published webpages from tripod or angelfire. Damiens .rf 22:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. author of ISBN 84-7844-138-7 on the military history of Puerto Rico, which is in turn referenced by several English language works.  It's well written and well sourced, and Wikipedia is better for having well written articles.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep- Why am I not surprised? Does this have to do with what is going on [here?]. I was not commissioned by anyone, my main subject of interest is the military history of Puerto Rico. Negroni is a noted historian and the author of "Historia Militar de Puerto Rico" (A Military History of Puerto Rico (the book)), which was commissioned by Spain's Fifth Centennial Commission and the author of countless books, seee: Books He was also the Chief of Liaison for the Joint United States Military Group in Spain and the Spanish Government presented Negroni with its highest Air Force peacetime award, the Aeronautical Merit Cross and the first Puerto Rican graduate of the United States Air Force Academy. By the way, I fixed your "find sources" to how it should be. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have to agree with Tony and Edward. His book is an essential reading about the military history of Puerto Rico. The book is listed in the New York Library's research page about The Spanish American War 1.--Jmundo (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article has not been properly tagged as having been nominated for deletion. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T 08:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since this article still wasn't properly tagged to-day, I have tagged it.  A closer should note that the clock didn't begin ticking until now .  We don't even know yet whether it would be fair to invoke WP:SNOW, as the comments may not be representative. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T  20:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep-Having been the first Puerto Rican at the Academy (where PR is underrepresented since admissions are partially based on the size of its congressional delegation) alone, makes him notable. His subsequent scholarship makes that notability unquestionable.  His awards, especially from a foreign government, make his notability clearly recognizable.Pr4ever (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The comments above say it all. --Kumioko (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Awarded one of a foreign government's highest awards and author of a book that is trusted and respected enough to be referenced by peers in that area of study. Along with points brought up above, notability established. Calmer   Waters  10:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment" - All relevant information in the article is sourced to three personal self-published websites, the first belonging to the subject himself, the second to the subject's cousing, and the third is a user-submission based biography collector. --Damiens .rf 14:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources not sufficient to establish notability. Most of the references used to cite the article appear to be personal websites. If Mr Negroni has written a notable book this doesn't automatically translate into him being notable. Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure about this one, to be honest. I can see both sides of the argument. I agree with Damiens about the sourcing. I don't believe that some of the sources would be considered reliable as they could be considered to have a conflict of interest due to the proximity of the authors to the subject. (Please see RS.) However, from what I can see the subject appears to be "recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing". This quote is direct from WP:MILMOS, which would therefore seem to indicate that the subject fits the general criteria of inclusion set by concensus in the project. Additionally some of the military achievements seem like they could be notable, i.e. first Puerto Rican graduate of US Air Force Academy, and there are a number of decorations, which although they don't confer notability within the project by themselves such as the Medal of Honor, when held together with other achievements they might lead to improving the subject's notability. Would it be possible, perhaps, for the author to provide a few more citations to third party sources? This might help ease the concerns that people might have about the sourcing and then notability would be unquestionable. (For instance a quote from somewhere that cites that Negroni's book is considered to be a definitive account that is essential to understanding the topic.) Also other sourcing for the biographical information as this could be a WP:BLP concern. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Standard cleanup/sourcing improvement issues, no reason shown for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being the first Puerto Rican graduate of the USAF Academy makes him notable on its own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and close - To be commissioned by the government to write the "Military History of Puerto Rico" is a notable feat in itself. To the Closing Administrator, this nomination seems to me to have been a bad faith nomination from the very beginning. It was in tone with the ongoing "stalking" of the "Marine" on behave of the nominator. The nominator in question was condemned for his actions and "blocked" from editing, see evidence. The nominator failed to even follow proper procedure which is a standard requirement. 1. He did not notify the creator of the article that it was nominated for deletion, 2. He did not "tag" the article that it was nominated for deletion. This may be acceptable from an inexperienced editor, but not from the nominator who is very experienced with the deletion process and therefore creates an air of suspicion as if this nomination is simply in tone with the agenda against "Marine". Antonio "The Truth" Martin
 * Comment: Unless you are likewise going to claim that anyone who has expressed support for proposed deletion is also acting in bad faith, this nomination needs to be treated a legitimate. It may be that, in a day or so, we see that it can be closed as per WP:SNOW; or it may be that five or more days are needed to seee where consensus lies.  But the proposition that one editor who supports deletion acted in bad faith is insufficient basis for speedy close unless that editor were the sole supporter. —24.255.26.9 (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: And who are you, 24.255.26.9? Are you an established editor who doesn't dare sign his/her name to the comment, or truly a wikipedia reader who has never made a contribution to any article, or found a fault with anything else in wikipedia that merits a comment or an edit, but happened, by happenstance, to run into this article? Pr4ever (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: Knock it off. I simply hadn't noticed that Wikipedia had signed me out, and even if I'd never editted Wikipedia before in my life, the points made were valid, and your use of ad hominem is an exercise in irelevancy. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T  20:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Based exclusively on your unsigned comment, not knowing at the time that it was not your intent to make an anonymous comment, it was relevant to question that someone who had never made a contribution to wikipedia appear out of the blue to comment about this article. Having said that, your explanation is accepted at face value, now making irrelevant what I expressed before. Pr4ever (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't relevant. In fact, it was a hard-core violation of a significant Wikipedia behavioral guideline, as well as just poor analysis.  Again: The points made in the (inadvertantly) anonymous comment were valid.  If you could find flaw with them, then you should have noted as much; if you could not then you shouldn't have engaged in ad hominem. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T  03:26, 3 January 2010 (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.