Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolás Morás


 * 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. Salvio 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Nicolás Morás

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable journalist. Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:BIO.  scope_creep Talk  22:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per failing WP:N and also WP:BIO. Emaponche (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 23:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 23:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep notable journalist, well known work and participation in the mass media WP:BASIC. User:LiebeZenPeace (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * As a consumer of Spanish-speaking mass media, especially Argentine, I personally do not believe in the particular remarkableness of this journalist. He could be notable only within a certain particular audience, but not so much as to have great importance within the mass media as he is not widely recognized. His most important work only includes three documentary films that are also not prominent or noteworthy. I think that WP:JOURNALIST would strongly apply here. Emaponche (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Notability depends on the article containing independent sources WP: IS, not its popularity WP:OBSCURE WP:NOBODYREADSIT. I agree that in his documentaries his publication is validated WP:JOURNALIST, but also in his journalistic work that, it is worth mentioning, appears in the following official media of great international scope: Hispantv, RT, Sputnik, and Telesur, and official media from Argentina: La Voz del Interior, Infobae, Canal22, and Pressenza. Without mention his credibility, which, far from being questioned, his notability was built on his work where he uses multiple sources to maintain objectivity and partiality.LiebeZenPeace (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thanks for clarifying your viewpoint. Secondly, you mention that he "appears in (…) media of great international scope". Altough that might be actually true, I still think that the sourcing on the page is very poor. WP:EXIST might be a nice explanation as sources from Infobae (the only major media source of all references) are self-published and do not provide relevance about him (WP:USINGSPS). Thirdly, as you explained, he mostly appears in media (such as HispanTV, RT, Sputnik, and Telesur) that were classified by Wikipedia as questionable sources (WP:DEPRECATED), so his work could be WP:BIASED and lead to WP:SOAP. Lastly and most importantly, as his work might fall into WP:BLPFRINGE, this all would explain why I believe the article shouldn't stay in Wikipedia. Emaponche (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's get to the point. I put the links and references there to demonstrate the trajectory of his career, not to validate his arguments, personally according to his sources, which by the way he uses sources of all categories in his private investigations, but it is not the point, but to verify that he has been in those places, not if he is biased or not, it is precisely a biography of a character that I think I have argued his remarkable, since he appears in many media from all strata, so he has a large number of people interested in your subject, which is proven, and that is why your article is convenient here, and it is fair. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:BIO as there is no independent coverage of the subject on any reliable source, cites either point to opinion pieces by the subject or passing mentions of the subject on independent journalism blogs. These sources mention the subject as part of promotion of his fringe theory advocacy, including his anti-Soros campaign, which is against Wikipedia policy (WP:FRINGEBLP). The Wikipedia user that wrote this article is a personal friend of the subject so it's an obvious case of WP:COISELF and WP:SOAPBOX. --MewMeowth (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand what you are saying, you say they only quote him on blogs WP: AQU, but the character in question is not only a WP:JOURNALIST, whether you like his investigative topics or not WP:TASTE WP: IDL, he is called in official media WP: HITS WP:RS, as I explained in my previous comment, precisely because of the rigor of his work, and because they value that as such WP: NBIO. And this is enough reason to have an article on Wikipedia. On the other hand, Soros is not protected on Wikipedia, because it is about neutrality, and Morás is not only recognized for that particular work, of which there are secondary sources in this regard, he has even been called to speak about politics in general in recognized media in his country WP: SOSTENIDO. And, of course, I absolutely have no relationship with Morás, and that accusation is suspicious. All neutrality requirements are being met here WP:NOTPROMOTION WP:NPOV, your accusation seems to me sincerely exaggerated. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There's a photo of you, next to this article's subject, calling him "a friend," on Instagram. I would definitely call that a relationship. As per Wikipedia policy you are to disclose potential COIs and in fact you are barred from meta-discussions such as AfD on articles where you have a COI. --MewMeowth (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you investigating me? Well, if you are so interested in my private life, I can tell you that I met him, on the street, and I liked him, because I agree with his rigor and his work, but I do not have much relationship with him, in fact, We met when I was on vacation, once, you can't say that we are personal friends. I just hope you don't think that's why I have no right to write an article about him, because Wikipedia does not prohibit it, actually I have been neutral and descriptive, for example I put in Controversies that he is critical of Zionism but that there are libertarian circles where they are critical of his position, where you see partiality, he is concrete, but I do not find real reasons to delete the article, let's be fair. But I think that you are harassing me when looking for me on Instagram, and that you are boasting in bad faith, with that argument I can say that you are wanting to eliminate it because you openly have beliefs contrary to those that Nicolás Morás maintains, but nevertheless I do not do it WP:GF. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You are calling him a friend, then you have a COI, and will need to withdraw. I will post a note up to coin tonight.  scope_creep Talk  08:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have already answered you in your comment, but I'm afraid to add that in addition to speculating maliciously about the context of the photo they took harassing me, also are trying to censure me for telling me that I have COI as if the article I wrote was biased, which I already mentioned but I repeat, you are following a leader, and you have not responded to my affirmations. You are WP:BIASED, please i am asking you impartiality and consideration. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "As per Wikipedia policy you are to disclose potential COIs and in fact you are barred from meta-discussions such as AfD on articles where you have a COI." – He is certainly allowed to participate in an AfD discussion relating to a topic in which he may have a conflict of interest. He just needs to disclose his personal relationship with the subject first, and he also needs to avoid creating or contributing to articles in which his biases can influence his discretion. I don't see this as a case of paid editing. To me, it's an acquaintance of the article subject who wants to help raise his profile by giving him his own Wikipedia page. If this is the first time he's done something like this, then it's fair to assume that he didn't realize his editing would be seen as a conflict of interest. I don't think it's fair for anyone to label LiebeZenPeace a single-purpose account on the basis of one ill-advised article. Kurtis (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And that's exactly the opposite of what the article's creator has done here. The article was single-handedly created by them, they have never disclosed their COI, even going as far as removing the COI tag I placed in the article, as well as being very concerned about Google's indexing of the article. Are we going to be so obtuse and ignore an obvious case of WP:SOAPBOX? Of course, the article will get removed on AfD by the mere fact of not having a single valid source that would merit its existence on Wikipedia, but it's very concerning to see how often Wikipedia turns a blind eye to obvious cases of paid, PR or SEO editing. --MewMeowth (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware that he didn't follow COI guidelines, which is why I mentioned it in the first place. My view is that there isn't enough evidence to implicate LiebeZenPeace in paid editing. He probably wanted to create an article for someone who he personally met and considered notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page, and then after he created it, he searched for it on Google and was concerned that it didn't show up. Is it possible that he has a genuine conflict of interest and is receiving some sort of compensation for his edits? Sure it is. But until we can establish that there is a pattern of such editing, or we get some sort of confirmation that he's engaging in advocacy, I don't think it's fair to call LiebeZenPeace a single-purpose account. Kurtis (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment LiebeZenPeace is a SPA and likely a UPE. I never noticed. And the reason I posted this. Help desk. He seems desperate to get indexed by Google. I have left a WP:PAID disclosure on the editors page.  scope_creep Talk  11:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to tell you that you are subjectively interpreting my concerns, since I asked that question because I did not know about it, and I had not seen another user asking about it, I must tell you that you are not only biased in your comment, you also incur as the Another user in the lack of good faith WP:GF, and you're taking someone who falsely insinuates that I want to promote, you are following a WP:LEADER, that accusing me with bad faith and obsessively investigating me. I still do not know about some policies like the ones you have put me in, I do not receive money, I am making this contribution for reasons that I have stated and that you decided to ignore and speculate instead. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Not much independent coverage, fails notability. Nika2020 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have already argued the importance of the journalist for a considerable group of people from different backgrounds and classes, I also argued that the sources that I put is to verify the places where he was, all those factors give him enough notability. I also argued that your WP: OBSCURE is not a reason for deletion, as well as your WP: POPULARITY. I would greatly appreciate you taking the time to view my arguments in this discussion. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You not practicing WP:AGF, by pestering an editor who seems to be in good standing. OK, you have posted your arguments. Let the others and the Afd proceed at its own pace, please.   scope_creep Talk  09:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete – While it is obvious that LiebeZenPeace has put a great deal of effort into this article, and the journalist's career does seem to be on an upward trajectory, I am of the opinion that he is not currently notable enough for inclusion. The biggest issue is a near-total dearth of reliable sources. Searching for possible citations turned up links from the Latin American Information Agency, Sputnik News, Sign of the Times, Palestina Libre, and People Pill (blacklisted from being linked to on Wikipedia), as well as a YouTube video with 22,000 views uploaded by a channel with just over one hundred subscribers. None of these would fly as sources, either because their publishers have a known political bias, or they are otherwise not sufficiently accredited. As far as WP:JOURNALIST is concerned, he fulfills none of the guidelines. While he is not unknown among Argentine libertarians and some segment of the Latin American community, it is safe to say that he has not become a significant figure in his field just yet, and he hasn't published a body of work that would be notable enough to justify having an article about him. The closest he would get to qualifying is criterion 4, specifically subsection "c": it seems like his work is beginning to garner some degree of critical attention. But even then, having an article for this journalist is really stretching the parameters of what would be permissible by that metric. Because this is a BLP, it's better to err on the side of caution. While I have no prejudice against creating an article for him down the road should his accomplishments merit one, he doesn't have a substantial enough repertoire at this time to be included. Kurtis (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you investigate better the next time, each video that he uploads to his channel exceeds at least a hundred views, reaching two hundred, three hundred and even a million and eight hundred thousand views as in his last documentary about the pope.Few libertarians in South America achieve this, has made many complaints that could not be refuted, is subject to "critical attention" as some have wanted but without success. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. <i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comments. I see quite a few errors in what appears to be a machine-translated article from Spanish; this page needs more work to make it actually English-language. The subject appears to be quite controversial on Twitter. I can't read Spanish well enough to evaluate all of the sources. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete since subject fails WP:JOURNALIST as well as WP:GNG. The overtly promotional text does not help in the least. Most sources indicate simply that he's a journalist (e.g. this, this, this, this, and so on), but on that we would all proclaim nolo contendere. -The Gnome (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.