Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julio Pino


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Julio Pino

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A review of available sources suggests quite strongly that this person fails WP:PROF and is not notable by other standards. His academic work certainly doesn't merit an article, and it's clear we're getting one because of the headlines he has garnered for having anti-American and anti-Israeli views. So, it's pure WP:COATRACK and should be deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - essentially an WP:ATTACK page on a living person who does not meet WP:PROF.  nableezy  - 18:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Based on Google/Google Books/Google News searches does not meet WP:PROF and I can't identify any other category of notability this person would fall under. MisterRichValentine (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I was never arguing he meets WP:PROF, but he does meet the basic notability requirements of any individual, WP:BASIC. He's discussed in a number of books - for example:
 * 
 * 
 * (note, he also goes by "Assad Pino" and "Julio Cesar Pino").

His book Family and Favela is mentioned in these distinguished works:
 * 
 * 

and mini-reviewed here:
 * 
 * A extensive list of reviews on Pino's book can be found in Pino's CV


 * And as for the WP:Coatrack concerns, I would keep in mind that I'm using entirely reliable secondary sources and absolutely nothing opinionated or inflammatory. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Having reviewed Plot Spoiler's links, where are the sources which describe the subject in "significant detail," as the GNG requires? These are passing mentions, if that, and don't describe the subject in any detail at all.  Ravenswing  01:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're defining "detail" far too stringently. All the sources describe the subject in detail. I don't see how you can deny that, particularly in these two sources . Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I would challenge that any of the google book sources would be appropriate for a BLP.  nableezy  - 03:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, FoxNews, USA Today, ADL. There's been significant coverage of him in reliable third-party sources, including a debate over whether his behavior is acceptable in the United States.—Biosketch (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not biographical coverage. It might support an article something like Rantings of Julio Pino, but it's not suitable for a BLP.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the sources aren't biographical coverage, they're passing news coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The news and academic sources employed the article range from 1999 to 2011. This is not simply passing coverage. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable asan academic, and I'm reluctant to conclude the negative material important enough to be the justification for an article. I think this doesn't meet the standards for BLP. If he were a public figure it would be different, but I think this almost qualifies for G10 speedy.   DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 7 November 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.