Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaume Cañellas Galindo (2nd nomination)


 * 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. v/r - TP 15:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Jaume Cañellas Galindo
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * First nomination was closed with no consensus because of too much off-topic content.
 * After having asked for sources several times, no sources have been provided for most of the "important content", such as publications
 * Most of the sources are primary sources (original scan of academic degrees, ...) (WP:NOR)
 * No independent secondary reliable source which talks about Jaume Cañellas Galindo directly in detail (and not just as a trivial mention) provided.
 * Even with appropriate references, the current content of the article does not reflect enough notability to be admitted in an encyclopaedia.
 * Last time sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry and many SPA were used to push to keep this article. I won't talk about these topics any more. I'll just flag them with the appropriate template.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 11:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 11:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 11:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 11:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No proper reference to verify the person. Also the article lacks many information . -- C h i n n Z      ( talk &#124;  Contrib ) 11:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the long paragraphs of first this, pioneering that, there's no satisfaction of ACADEMIC or related guidelines that I can see -- though I stand ready to be corrected (with specificity please, and no sockpuppets need apply). EEng (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Spmdcp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep Recognized public figure with enough links verified.--Spmdcp (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is significant coverage even though the main focus is not him, but other than that there's just this incidental mention regarding a case he's involved with, and this where he provides an opinion regarding another case — Frankie (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * — Samein50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep Character of notoriety evident. Article with many references. The character is a known human rights defensor and denounced the bill irregularities and fraud that led to a change in abortion law in Spain. --Samein50 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.medicinatv.com/noticias/cataluna-un-psiquiatra-denuncia-irregularidades-en-una-clinica-de-interrupciones-voluntarias-de-embarazo-de-girona-139122
 * http://es-la.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=112360901491&comments
 * http://www.unidosporlavida.org/Proyecto_adopcion/adhesiones.htm
 * http://www.pilarrahola.com/3_0/ARTICULOS/default.cfm?SUBFAM=35&ID=287
 * https://www.xing.com/net/valores-humanos/noticias-162540/la-sociedad-espanola-de-ginecologia-y-obstetricia-pide-que-el-concepto-juridico-y-legislativo-de-aborto-se-adecue-al-medico-10770758/
 * http://www.protomedicos.com/2008/07/08/los-medicos-reclaman-la-legalizacion-en-espana-de-los-vientres-de-alquiler/
 * Urgent: Those who seek to delete this article show a language that attacks the character and should not be allowed in Wikipedia. defamation is a serious and dangerous attitude. --Samein50 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * — Dianaruttman1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BLP violations: I very much object to the NOM comment that : " is significant coverage even though the main focus is not him, but other than that there's just this incidental mention regarding a case he's involved with " = Comment :This is clearly a libel, because Jaume Cañellas is the accuser and not the accused. Is the victim and not the offender. --Dianaruttman1 (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The comment was made by me, not the nom, and I don't mean to imply anything other than he is related to the case — Frankie (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * — Dianaruttman1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep Many references do make it very clear they consider him an expert and spokesman for the profession and his evident notability. --Dianaruttman1 (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/814/wespecialidad.jpg/
 * http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/wespecialidad2.jpg/
 * http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/267/wclinicaalianza.jpg/
 * http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/694/wclinicaalianza6.jpg/
 * http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/3/centromartorell.jpg/


 * — Misterfister1337 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep This well-known professional has to be recognized for their work in wikipedia, the references are accurate, is a recognized professional in his field. MFTR (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The signature to the above comment, MFTR, obscures the fact that its true author is none other than the alarmingly-named Misterfister1337, one of the many SPAs which come out of the woodwork only when deletion of this absurd article comes up for discussion.  Really, can't you go waste someone else's time? EEng (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Defamation is not the way to make wikipedia better. Im not the author, but as follower of this exceptional professional im doing my best to keep it in wikipedia. MFTR (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, can't you go waste somebody else's time? EEng (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Misterfister aka MFTR has been blocked as a sockpuppet of our old pal Gumerperu (well known to veterans of Round 1 of this AfD). (Provisional diagnosis: delusions of grandeur, messiah complex (imagines he Saves the Children), craves adulation and recognition; etiology unknown, but probable origin in childhood or adolescence e.g. not enough maternal love). EEng (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * — Honesty32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep Character certainly very relevant. Incredible, someone want to eliminate the biographie of a referent in the child and adolescent psychiatry of the world ? Honesty32 (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, can't you go waste somebody else's time? EEng (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * — Isaperoms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep: Biography of a professional relevant (and living person) and with very obvious references to his notoriety.--Isaperoms (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, can't you go waste somebody else's time? Happy Holidays! EEng (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to (and about) sockpuppets and meatpuppets: Attention is called to this passage from WP:GAFD:
 * One exception to the principle of assume good faith concerns the use of sockpuppets. This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the decision process.  A close variation is to enlist "meatpuppets", people from outside Wikipedia to "run in" (for example, if my article about a web forum is up for deletion and I post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia").  Signs of these tactics are that a contributor's account was created after discussion began, that a contributor has few edits or that a contributor's other edits have been vandalism.  Other Wikipedians will draw attention to such facts and may even recommend deletion simply because apparent sock- or meat-puppets piled in with "do not delete" or other similar comments.

Since at least two of the apparent puppets (whether of the textile or flesh-and-blood variety) who have disrupted this discussion gone so far as to identify themselves on their userpages by their (purported) real-life identities, it's fair to further draw attention to the followign from WP:COI ("conflict of interest"):
 * COI editing is routinely exposed and can be reported adversely in the media. All edits are on the public record and remain so indefinitely...While Wikipedians generally avoid naming editors and their paymasters, other media routinely do. This has led at times to extreme media embarrassment for the company or organization, dismissal (firing) of those at fault, and at times even court actions or charges, if done in a work or professional context.

EEng (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, notability not established. Puppetry is a dead giveaway of lack of notability, as is the 5.0/5.0 rating on every measure for the article with over 250 quality-rating votes. For my money, salt too. Josh Parris 13:51, 26 December 2011 (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.