Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lupe Hernández


 * 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. There is general consensus that there is enough sourcing to support the notability of this as a hoax. It has been moved already to reflect this but the proper naming/location of the article is outside the scope of this AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Lupe Hernández

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The whole article is based on a brief mention in The Guardian article, which the article's author could not corroborate (Articles with a single source). All other sources either copy The Guardian or cast doubt on it. This was deprodded because "it could be merged into Hand sanitizer", but this, too, should only be done if the subject is actually related to inventing hand sanitizer, and there is serious doubt about it. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete There was no student nurse in Bakersfield in the 1960s named Lupe Hernandez. Thus this is some sort of hoax. There were patents being taken out for the production of hand sanitizer, although not under exactly that name, at least as far back as the 1930s. This whole thing is a mess and we should not have an article where the basic claims have been proven false. On the other hand there is also not enough to justify an article on the fictional person here. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in one form or another. This has been widely reported and/or debunked, making the topic notable, whether the person existed or not. Teach the controversy! e.g. Smithsonian National Museum of American History, LA Times, The Guardian, Remezcla, Vanity Fair, Salud America. pburka (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it notable as a hoax? Not so much. The LA Times dedicates a whole article to it, but covers it as a thing that almost certainly didn't happen. The Guardian story is from 2012, and it's the thing that started the probably-wrong story. Remezcla just mentions The Guardian story, without any more info, corroboration, or fact-checking. Vanity Fair has one paragraph that mentions The Guardian story. "Salud America" just says nothing at all.
 * The only link here that is in any way worth noting is the one from the LA Times, which is not enough to establish the notability of this story, even as a hoax. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the Salud America story was more substantial when I looked at it! pburka (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be a hoax and not a notable one. Keeping it would go against not having articles about people that where involved in a single event anyway. Especially if the person never even existed to be involved in the single event. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons of those who wants this kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep (or possibly merge somewhere) and rename as Lupe Hernández hand sanitizer legend we can't bio a fake person, but can report on the story. Reframe as an unambiguous legend since the experts who have researched it conclude there is no known person. The LA Times story makes a number of assertions of notability which are significant: "the legend of Lupe Hernandez from Bakersfield has bounced around the medical world" .. "Nursing textbooks, college professors and presenters at medical conferences repeated the tale" .. "Media outlets worldwide started to report on Hernandez’s “discovery.”" .. if this is not notability what is? It is a cultural phenomenon (in the literal sense). -- Green  C  19:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not notability. This is a useless story based on a single news article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Supporting the claim that this urban legend has been repeated in nursing textbooks: The Growth and Development of Nurse Leaders (2019) Springer p.261 pburka (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which just goes to show that a lot of modern text book writers are lazy perpetrators of unsourced material who do not believe enough in going to primary sources. I am reminded of some of the horrid text books we were exposed to in my education program. Ones that took very biased positions against standardized testing. It also reproduced an alleged 19th-century teacher contract, that was immaterial to the discussion at hand because it was almost certainly the guidelines for Sunday school teachers, not public school teachers, and there was no explantion of exactly where or when or on whom the contact was binding. Shoddy scholarship and repetaing something from some other text book without determining if the item was real or made up by someone to advance their view of the past. For all I know the item originated in some fictional book written decades after the alleged time it covered. To prove this as a widely cited thing, you need lots of sources, not just one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:BEFORE. A Google News search brings up 100s of news stories from around the world. They all repeat the same legend but that is the point of what the LA Times is saying. The LA Times is a reliable source and when they say "Nursing textbooks, college professors and presenters at medical conferences repeated the tale" there is no reason to doubt it. -- Green  C  21:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And I think the point is the same paragraph size (maybe 2 paragraph size) story, bereft of any details, and bereft of any significant commentary, is repeated over and over. It's not even a notable hoax or as an urban legend. The LA Times might be the only source that qualifies as significant coverage, but multiple sources are needed. Fails GNG, BASIC. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Steve Quinn: what about the Washington Post story? It isn't just a restatement of the story, they attempted to corroborate it. With that, it would seem there are multiple good sources covering it as a legend. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename appropriately. I think this is within WP:GNG per sources. at least for now. BabbaQ (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And rename how? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with renaming it to something like "Lupe Hernández (hoax)" is that then Wikipedia would be taking a position on it. Which it's not suppose to do. Plus, it being a hoax doesn't seem to be reflected in all the sources evenly either. But, keeping it as is would have the same problem, but in reverse. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's my thinking, too. If it was a probably-true story, it would be fine to have a short article. But it's a probably-false story, and even as a misconception it's not notable enough to find a smart way to describe it in a useful and reliable way. It's better to just delete it to avoid any chance of xkcd 978 happening. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia takes a position on many things. Global warming, vaccines, etc.. we follow what experts say. If expert opinion changes so does Wikipedia. This is a WP:FRINGE theory (as most urban legends are), we have many articles on/about fringe theories and urban legengs. There is no evidence it is a "hoax", though, which is intentional misleading. -- Green  C  14:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you can say Wikipedia is taking a position in this case when the article contains a bunch of speculation and fact hedging. That's way different then the article about vaccines. No one is debating their existence or what they are, just their efficacy. Whereas, here we don't even know if Lupe Hernández is a real person, if they are even alive, or anything else about them. The sources can't even agree on the persons gender. Biographical articles have high standards, and it would be ridiculous to say that those standards are being met when we can't even reliably say what gender the person is. There has to be a clear statement of fact in biographical articles. We don't speculate about people. At least not to this degree, if at all. Also, generally IMO an article where almost everything is prefaced with maybe, might have been, or similar fact hedging language isn't encyclopedic and therefore doesn't serve the purpose of Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What the article says now is junk that will be cleaned up. -- Green  C  12:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Doubtful. People always say that, but it never happens. I don't see a non-messy way to write it anyway. You can't clean up the sources not agreeing on the persons gender so the article meets WP:BIO. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't have to meet WP:BIO if we rename it. Even though WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, many, many articles do see substantial improvement after or during deletion discussions: there's a whole essay about it. pburka (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The article has now been completely rewritten by pburka.  --  Green  C  01:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In the current form it should still be deleted. I can't think of any other title under which it should be kept. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG, multiple sources discuss this "person", article now reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Wikipedia should take positions on less things than it does. I still do not think there is enough sourcing to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This article still needs to be deleted. Nursing textbooks being used as a source for the publication of wrong information in nursing text books is an example of using primary sources which is banned. This article has too much original research. It needs to be deleted as such and not meeting the guildeines of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's simply incorrect. Here's the actual policy:
 * Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
 * The article uses a secondary source to support the claim that the nursing text books have repeated the claim, and also includes a reference to the specific text in question (the primary source). The primary source could be removed without affecting the verifiability of the article, but it would remove information which would be useful to a researcher. pburka (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem with primary sourcing is this case is that the guideline says they can only be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified. Which I don't think works here because there are no straightforward verifiable facts about the subject, primarily obtained or otherwise. Maybe it could technically be argued that the primary sources verify that the facts aren't verifiable. Which can be verified. Although, that seems pretty circular and its not a descriptive statement of fact about the subject anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm asking: How can this article be renamed in a way that will make any sense? And in other words, what is the article's actual subject?
 * It's quite clear that it cannot be an article about a person, because the person probably didn't exist. And sure, the English Wikipedia has Category:People whose existence is disputed, to which this article has now been added, but does it really belong in the same category with Robin Hood and Queen of Sheba, about whom there are highly notable primary sources and enormous heaps of secondary research literature?
 * So is it an article about a myth, an urban legend, a misconception, an Internet meme? Or about something else?
 * Once this is decided, it will be possible to discuss this article's keeping. Till then, please delete it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Robin Hood and the Queen of Sheba are notable as literary characters. Lupe Hernandez is a hoax, not a literary character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, my point exactly. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The story is notable per WP:GNG as discussed in multiple reliable sources The Washington Post, LA Times, Smithsonian Museum and Vanity Fair, and as indicated in dozens of other sources around the world as seen on Google News. --  Green  C  14:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in passing in multiple reliable sources which does not qualify it for GNG. This story has the reliability of a blog post, which Wikipedia is not. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with your characterization of the sources. -- Green  C  19:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If kept, must be moved - Per, this needs a title like Lupe Hernández hoax/legend etc. It is not appropriate for it to be set up like a bio. I am on the fence about whether it should be deleted or kept though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic of the Guardian article is hand sanitizer and Hernandez has a passing mention in the first paragraph.


 * The El Correo article is also passing mention, really it is hardly that.


 * Lupez gets passing mention in WAPO, but WAPO says it has been unable to confirm the story even after tracing it back to before the Guardian article. Also, WAPO could not find the patent that supposedly belonged to Hernandez. WAPO concludes: "Regardless of the facts, this is why we think the legend of Lupe went a little viral this week: because it is the story of how one woman — without access to a pharmaceutical lab or a PhD in chemistry, without the guidance of government, diligently and with a can-do American spirit — came up with a simple yet ingenious solution. Her story might not be 99.99 percent true, or even 0.9 percent true. But believing it might confer a little bit of emotional protection against the darkness of this pandemic. She could do it. You can do it. We can do it. It just takes a little bit of improvisation. A little bit of luck. A little bit of hope. If only we could bottle that." This is supposition. Notice the phrase "why we think..." There is nothing of substance.


 * The Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation (reference) says: "So I began by searching for a patent issued to Lupe Hernandez (or several variations of the name), but I didn’t find any.I did discover patents for hand sanitizers from roughly the same period, but those covered apparatuses into which one would place one’s hands for sanitizing." The author discovered patent for these devices by Stevenson and Nelson. Earlier patents were discovered for 1934, 1936, 1908, and 1941 but were not necessarily hand sanitizers that we use today. So this debunks the story, and is barely passing mention.


 * This Spanish newspaper source cites only the Guardian newspaper, does not discuss discovering the patent because they didn't investigate, mentions GOJO Purell, and mentions the H1N1 swine flu pandemic in 2009 where it transitioned to public use. Again this is passing mention but it's the same story as the Guardian as its source.


 * The LA Times couldn't verify the story.


 * Vanity Fair is passing mention. The article traces the history of hand sanitizer from  1875 and variations in 1911 and 1936. In 1946 a husband wife team invented GOJO hand cleaner but it was cleaner not a sanitizer. "It’s not meant to kill germs, but to scrub off oil, grease, and other junk from the skin." In 1988 they concocted the hand sanitizer but different from Purell. Regarding Hernandez, "The origin of this claim appears to be a 2012 article in The Guardian; all other mentions of Lupe Hernandez came after that article and provide no other information. Facts about Lupe Hernandez are nonexistent: no patent under that name was filed, nor was any hand-sanitizer-related patent under any other name for a decade on either side."
 * So this is passing mention again, and there is no evidence this story is true.


 * In all these sources it fails verification as a real person and is not a true story. There are no details of this person life that are available. Hence it fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. It fails GNG because each source is passing mention. The only source cited by the sources is the 2012 Guardian article, so it's the same story repeated over and over again. This is not significant coverage in multiple independent sources as required by WP:GNG. Also, Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social media service, or memorial site. And, Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia does have a bar or several bars for inclusion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Passing mention what? Some of these articles are entirely about it. Wikipedia as many notable urban legends see Category:Urban legends. I don't understand your point about the sources being unable to verify the story. History has many such things that are notable. Wikipedia is not "only things that are verifiable true". As noted above renaming the article is something we can do any time, to be about the story not a bio article.  --  Green  C  13:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not true that some of these articles are entirely about it. Which ones are you talking about? The only one maybe is the LA Times article. And, I will look at that again. As has been stated above, enough significant coverage as an urban legend or myth has not been presented so the topic is disqualified under WP:1E. And as I stated, it is the same megear story over and over repeated in various RS. This is not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. And Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. --Steve Quinn (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If top-tier national sources like The Washington Post, Smithsonian and LA Times are not sufficient then nothing will be, you have set the bar extremely high. WP:1E is for biography articles, this is an urban legend. We have many Category:Urban legends they are not "indiscriminate". -- Green  C  19:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I doubt a would be in any way appropriate here—and the inevitable WP:DRV would be so tiresome—but I really can't see any consensus to delete this; the real issue is not whether there's SIGCOV—there clearly is (now)—but what it is, precisely, that that coverage makes notable, a hoax or an individual. Either way, that's a discussion for the talk page.  serial   # 12:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bold Rename to Lupe Hernández hand sanitizer legend. -- Green  C  13:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Lupe Hernández hand sanitizer legend. Under its new name and in its current state, I think it is acceptable. The article does not say that the story is false, just that there have been failed attempts to verify it, so the concerns of Wikipedia taking a position have been adequately addressed in my opinion. PJvanMill (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2020 (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.