Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto González Echevarría


 * 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. (I suspect this is a SNOW keep.) This is a strange keep, given that it comes from the person who completed the nomination (noticing a redlink on February 1's AfD listing and a tag on the associated page), but it is abundantly clear that the subject passes NPROF and the GNG, and further sourcing was fairly easy to come across. Additionally, the comments made by the Yale IP indicate that the underlying deletion nomination was intended as a BLPREQUESTDELETE that, given the circumstances, is being done in bad faith, and given the references, is being requested by a public enough figure (or someone with a connection to him) that the subsection is not applicable. There is a worthy discussion on how much the negative elements with the available sources can/should be discussed while meeting our various BLP policies and guidelines, but that is for the talk page, not Articles for deletion. I will be starting a section header at the talk page and pinging the participants in this deletion discussion there for further handling of the matter. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 04:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Roberto González Echevarría

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Completing a nomination for IP nominator 130.132.173.30. No reason was given, but this editor then removed a section with the edit summary Contentious material about the living person named in this article is poorly sourced (blog) and libellous. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Some background: The "contentious material" section covered a sexual harassment allegation from 2017. See the removal diff. The main source cited in the paragraph is the Yale Daily News. The case was approved to go to trial in April 2020 and it got written up in Law.com at the time the allegations surfaced in 2017 .  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 17:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Further, the IP geolocates to Yale University, where the subject taught. The IP left a comment at User talk:GB fan reading, You are a previous editor of the Roberto González Echevarría page. González Echevarría would like the entire page removed from this cite. Would you be able to do that? Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 17:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Although the Yale Daily News url has "blog" as part of it, all the stories on the front page appear to direct to similar urls, and these otherwise appear to be normal Yale Daily News pieces.  I think they are as reliable as student newspaper sources usually are. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is my assessment as well, likely a CMS item. The more I look at this, the more I see this as not a matter for AfD. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 17:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NPROF criterion 5. Regarding whether to include the allegations, that's beyond the scope of this AfD, but as this is where attention is, I'll weigh in. It's tricky. WP:BLPCRIME states that for non-public figures (which would include a professor) editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Weighing against that is the fact that the allegations appear strongly substantiated, that the Yale Daily News is one of the most respected student newspapers in the U.S. and therefore very much a reliable source for Yale-related topics per WP:RSSM, and that it appears likely someone with a conflict of interest is trying to tamper with the article (which would nullify WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE considerations for me). I'd be alright seeing this go either way, but at the very least, we can include in the article the aspects that aren't strictly legal. I've done that here. (As disclosure, I came to this AfD through a generally neutral but conversational invitation on WP:DISCORD.) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I give some consideration to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, I think that the notability here is unambiguous: he passes WP:NPROF C5, also WP:NPROF C3 multiple times over, and the citation record (in a low-citation field) looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1.  He's fairly widely quoted on Cuba-related issues.  A casual search of JSTOR turns up lots of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR.  Comment that basic personal details can probably be sourced to a Yale Alumni Magazine piece . Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems to be notable under the GNG from the articles revealed by Google News, which goes beyond NPROF. The Miami Herald feature plus the consistent coverage by RS going to him for quotes on his field of expertise is more than the usual academic. It might even make him a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Would not be surprised if the IP who refers to the prof in the third-person is in fact the prof himself. Notability is well-demonstrated for reasons already given. Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Notability is not marginal so BLP1E does not apply. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC).
 * Keep Well sourced. Needs the stuff pulled from the page history, also work to bring text up to standard. Closing admin: feel free to ping me to do this work if kept. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2022 (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.