Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heron Santana


 * 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. Rklawton raises some pretty good points, but the weight of consensus leans towards deletion.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Heron Santana

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unsourced WP:BLP, likely autobiography by (see ). Guy (Help!) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note "autobiography" is not a valid reason for deletion nor is the observation that it is unsourced. The question at hand is whether or not the subject is notable and the article salvageable.  Rklawton (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, being unsourced is unquestionably a reason for deletion and so is being an autobiography, hence failing WP:NPOV. Feel free to fix these things. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The only good unsourced BLP is a deleted unsourced BLP.RadManCF (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - if I add a few reliable sources, then you'll change your vote? Rklawton (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. RadManCF (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. In response to Rklawton, I'm not Radman but I'll definitely change my !vote if you can show evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications!!   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 23:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Santana brought the first successful case to court asking that a chimpanzee be recognized as a person. This fact is sourced both in Portuguese and in English along with translations of both the precedent setting filing and the judge's ruling.  This accomplishment has been referenced in similar, more recent cases, and this is also sourced.  I've added these sources to the article.  As a result, the subject is notable, and the article salvageable.  Rklawton (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Badly fails WP:PROF - assisant (non-tenured) professor; brought a lawsuit about animal rights; etc. 03:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC) What I mean is that winning a lawsuit is what lawyers are supposed to do, that is not notable. Bearian (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya missed just one thing - it's a unique lawsuit. Rklawton (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I did not miss anything: "The process of asking for a Habeas Corpus of a chimpanzee has historical precedents in Brazil, that enables chimpanzees to be treated as living beings with rights, and not only objects." (emphasis added). It might be novel in common law, but Brazil is civil law jurisdiction. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the point. The process of asking for a Habeas Corpus of a chimpanzee has historical precedent specifically because of the suit filed by the subject of this biography in 2005.  As a result of his win, several other suits have been filed - and they cite his case as precedent.  A lawyer who wins a major precedent setting case, I would think, is notable.  Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But according to the English translation, the case was dismissed. I still don't understand how that can act as a precedent (under civil law).  We probably need an expert in Brazilian law. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the English translation, the case was not dismissed. It says right at the top:  "In favor of: Suica" (the ape).  That's why it's precedent setting.  At the bottom it says "dismissed" - but that means "completed" or "disposed of" rather than "thrown out".  It's not a matter one person's interpretation of "dismissed" or another's.  Other sources used in the article also state quite clearly that the Santana won the suit and that the decision was precedent setting.  Rklawton (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The translation is poor; in my 18 years as an attorney, "dismissed" means "plaintiff loses". Bearian (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Except for the top of the ruling which says the plaintiff wins and all the other sources that say he won the case, I'd agree with you. Rklawton (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: lack of notability and absence of third-party references. The legal case is not significant, because Santana did not win. The case was dismissed because of the death of the chimpanzee ("Thus, with the death of the chimpanzee, subject hereof, the Habeas Corpus has lost its purpose, its reason of being, thus ending the action... a case should be dismissed, without judging the merits, when missing the elements for valid and regular constitution and development of the proceeding... Therefore, I dismiss the case."). Had the case succeeded, there would no doubt have been a flood of article in legal journals discussing the implications, which would have guaranteed notability, but that didn't happen. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrase "in favour" does not indicate a finding in favour of the chimpanzee, by the way, but merely that habeas corpus was being sought in favour of the chimpanzee. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:19, 28 February 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.