Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humberto Acosta-Rosario


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Humberto Acosta-Rosario

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Nothing notable about being only remaining soldier from a particular U.S. state or territory to be unaccounted from the Vietnam War. He is one of 1585 Americans unaccounted for from the Vietnam War, they don't each deserve a page. His story is more than adequately covered on Puerto Ricans in the Vietnam War and List of Puerto Ricans missing in action in the Vietnam War. Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails notability guidelines.  Eyebeller  10:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails notability guidelines. This only x that meets y criteria has gone to the level of just plain craziness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - It totally wrong that a soldier must be awarded more then one Navy Cross to be notable. Who came up with that idea? The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Tony the Marine (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There is related discussion about this nomination here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71#Nomination_of_Jorge_Otero_Barreto_for_deletion Mercy11 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - The person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, which in this case you specifically named in my "talk" page "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. That is not relevant for Acosta-Rosario as he is missing and not a Navy Cross recipient. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The relevant information below comes from the WP page here


 * I view this and the above AfD's as a sudden agenda of personal attacks on the articles which are about "Hispanic" war heroes. This never happened before and what is cited as a reason for the nominations is an essay not policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have created a number of pages about people who do not satisfy WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG and therefore are not notable. Being the first Puerto Rican/Hispanic to do X does not establish notability. That's why these pages are being put up for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Really? So it is about the pages that I created and not what others have created? Let me tell you the person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, in this case you specifically name "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. I ask myself, what is the use of continuing in this project when after so many years the articles which have been created with hard work following the guidelines come under attack and are nominated for deletion? Tony the Marine (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tony. Unless this is an approved decision to remove every 'minor' American hero regardless of background from the encyclopedia then it should not begin with minority Americans. They are underrepresented in American history as it is. Let them be the last to be removed if at all.Dmercado (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90. While WP:SOLDIER is just an Essay it sets out presumptions as to military notability, which if the person has SIGCOV in multiple RS means that they deserve a page. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. GNG applies to everyone regardless of nationality and User:Marine 69-71 as an Admin should know that. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Its a consensus, you are welcome to try to argue it at AFD or elsewhere.Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - User:Letter and User:Mztourist seem to be supporting each other's delete nominations: one nominating the article for delete and the other user quickly agreeing to its deletion. I'll explain, (from what I've spotchecked) when User:Letter nominates the soldier article for deletion, Mztourist agrees on delete and vice versa. To nomination closer: If anything, remember that the delete is not a "count" vote. The two users agreeing on all deletion of specific soldier article nominations seems strange to me. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I have been accused of "canvassing" when it seems as if the two users mentioned have teamed up to eliminate articles about our heroes only because according to an essay they were not notable for being awarded one of the second highest military decoration of the United States. Instead it should be taken into account that the heroic actions that they made would in another case merit the Medal of Honor. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. A nomination using the WP:NSOLDIER essay as a delete criteria? Since when do we make delete decisions based on an WP:SPS as non-notable as a WP essay? What is a WP essay if it isn't a piece of writing expressing an editor's personal POV with no oversight by a notable editorial board of SMEs nor peer-reviewed by experts qualified in the branch on knowledge in question? I frown upon arguments made based on WP essays as if they were anything more than someone's desperate attempt to make his/her views known at WP after failing to get his/her ideas approved by the community at large and after failing to get those ideas into one of WP's WP:PG. Mercy11 (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You should familiarize yourself with the criteria used in assessing Military-related deletion discussions. I referred to both SOLDIER and GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than insulting editors' intelligence or reading ability, you should have already stepped aside and allow the nomination to run its course rather than jumping in everytime an editor makes a comment you don't like. Mercy11 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to make policy-based arguments. Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Somehow you appear to have developed an air of superiority over the rest of us here, empowering yourself now with the right to tell us what we "should" do or "need" to do. I am not sure you understood my previous comment: I don't appreciate you telling me what I should or should not do, nor appreciate you telling me what I need or need not do. Got it now? And, no, that was a rhetorical question, a response isn't needed. Mercy11 (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I reiterate my earlier comment, you (and anyone else participating in a deletion discussion) need to make policy based arguments. You have already been warned by another User about making personal attacks on the Users who developed the WP:SOLDIER consensus, which is relevant for military deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:32, 18 January 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.