Wikipedia:Deletion review/Rosario Isasi


 * 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 of the debate was Endorse closure as kept

Rosario Isasi

 * Speedy-deleted by user:Luigi30, 19 March 2006 - presumably for no assertion of notability
 * First nomination, 20 Mar 06 - speedy-closed as copyvio, page deleted
 * Second nomination, 9 Apr 06 - closed as keep
 * Third nomination, closed as keep

Recently survived an AfD as Keep. The only person who offered any kind of evidence of her notability was one person linking to a bio of her that shows nothing but ordinary academic credentials. In addition, several people opposed deletion based on the presence of another AfD a couple weeks earlier which passed after six votes and no discussion whatsoever. I personally would prefer to it deleted since as it stands, she has not been demonstrated to have any more notability than anyone else in academia (thus failing WP:BIO). However what I would really like to see is the ruling overturned from "Keep" to "No consensus", as there was by no means a rough consensus to keep that article and if or when I re-list it I don't want everybody opposing it just because it was closed as a consensus keep before. — GT 23:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As the closing admin, what can I say, she's a professor. Unlike, say, Internet memes, there are no pressing concerns of verfiability for American academics and I had no reason to interpret the consensus any way other than 'keep'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's look at the "consensus". Of 19 people who showed up to the page,
 * - 6 of us were unconvinced of the subject's notability and supported deletion (Tony, Fan1967, AKADriver, IrishGuy, Simon Cursitor, GT, Brian G. Crawford, and Pete.Hurd). (Edit: Simon Cursitor felt the "retention" of the article was not "justified" but apparently not on grounds of notability.)
 * Comment To be absolutely accurate, I did not vote for deletion. I offered a comment that the article itself was a "stub that doesn't seem to assert much (if any) notability." Although the article has been expanded slightly (very slightly), I still believe this is basically the case, and wish that somebody had devoted to the article half the effort they devoted to the AfD. Fan1967 14:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * - 5 people (badlydrawnjeff, Terence Ong, Anville, Jeff Burdges, and TheKMan) said "Keep, notable", without supporting their claim. They evidently think AfD is a vote. (Edit: on the basis, I should assume, of the evidence below)
 * - 5 people (MetaMagician3000, David Sneek, David.Mestel, Jcuk, and Monicasdude) opposed deletion on account of there being another AfD shortly before. MetaMagician3000, David.Mestel, and indirectly Monicasdude used the word "notable" without providing any support.
 * - Only one person (Loremaster) came even close to providing support for the notability claim, referring to a biography that didn't contain any evidence of notability in my view and it doesn't look like anyone else thought so either as none of the Keep votes referred to it.
 * Going by a vote on the merits of the article, it's 9 keeps versus 7 deletes. When it comes to actually discussing the merits of the article, which is the purpose of the AfD process, the keep supporters didn't really even make an attempt to convince the rest of us that she was notable. The only discussion was on whether this AfD should have been filed. You should go by the results of the discussion, not vote counting (which only yields a far from overwhelming 63% keep rate anyway), and the discussion revolved around two outcomes: "Delete", or "Close AfD as out of process". For you to claim that the consensus arrived at was "Keep" is grossly misrepresenting what actually happened. — GT 02:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, ignore this section. Its point was lost on everyone. Its emphasis was meant to be on the discussion, not my summary of the voting. — GT 14:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not going to allow you to misrepresent my comments on the matter. I said "Keep, appears to be notable enough, but requires major expansion."  This comes AFTER Loremaster and the nominee provided evidence of her nobility.  I won't speak for Terence Ong, but his comment at least gives the impression of similar rationale, as did David.Mestel's initial comment, Anville's, and the KMan, who's comment you considered "a joke."  Meanwhile, you don't seem to question Crawford's comment ("Wikipedia is not a who's who"), or note Pete.Hurd's questionable rationale following the wealth of information in the debate. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's how it looked to me as you did not specify why you thought it was notable. I'd still be overjoyed if someone could refence some actual facts rather than pointing to a bio and google results and think that notability is obvious. — GT 02:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was necessary to map out each multiple assertion in my commentary to make it worth something. I'm not sure why you don't think the bio and scholar results aren't "actual facts," though.  I mean, what else do you want to go by in this case?  --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because her bio only talks about her degrees, her research interests, and some organizations she is a part of. This is typical of any professor or academic (as well as her having been published in journals several times) and per WP:PROFTEST we should look for something that makes her particularly notable. If an academic person is really notable then you should be able to find many non-academic sources which refer to her and assert her notability. I haven't seen one yet in this case. — GT 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * -- As another of the names you have hauled in as corroboration for your "line", GT, it would have been "nice" to have been told (perhaps the e-mail is trrapped in the Blue Frog D-O-S of yesterday's date) and even nicer to have been cited correctly. My objection to the entry (at the time that I voted) was not "non-notable", but that what was then there was too much a stub to be a workable entry if challenged.  Anyway, thank you for bringing me into this, and, in order not to muddy the waters, I formally (as good discipline requires) register a No Vote on this. -- Simon Cursitor 07:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So instead of suggesting expanding the stub you decided it did not "justify retention". Under what circumstances would you arrive at that conclusion other than if it was non-notable or unverifiable? Regardless I struck your name above, although my point was not really to engage in vote-counting as I believe that's what the closing admin did and is incorrect procedure. — GT 08:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I decline to take part in a p*ssing contest -- you used my name in your argument: I sought my right of reply. That you disagree with my point of view, I accept: that you appear to find it offensive that I hold a point of view, I find offensive.  Were it within my power, I would seek sanctions against you for bad faith -- it isn't, I cannot (apparently I have not made "enough" edits to Wiki to be counted as a "good" contributor -- which someone will doubtless say justifies your stance).  I continue to offer no vote, given the circumstances. -- Simon Cursitor 08:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the fact that we have made identical numbers of edits, I am not offended by your views. I was just curious as to whether you understood the deletion policy as it relates to stubs and if so how you reconciled your understanding of it with your recommendations here. As far as "bad faith" goes, feel free to make your case against me here or elsewhere. That is a pretty heavy allegation and if you can't already tell, I'm not very keen on making claims and then not supporting them. — GT 04:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorse closure Process was followed and no new relevant information has been brought up. JoshuaZ 00:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would not personally consider this person to meet the generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies but enough people did during the AFD discussions that I think we should give the article the benefit of doubt for now. Endorse closure but without prejudice against renomination if the article is not improved in a reasonable period of time.  Rossami (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Undelete Endorse Closure. Ignoring the point that something really needs to be done about the constant AfDing of consensus keep articles, but I'm not convinced there wasn't a consensus to do anything on this one, and I'm still very convinced she meets the strict standards for notability. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want to remind the last two voters that what I am seeking here is an overturn from "Keep" to "No consensus" which doesn't affect the status of the article but will make a difference during its next AfD where people will look and see 2 keeps and then cry foul. — GT 02:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Qué? I closed as 'keep'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, misread the nom. I forget that people take keep results here occasionally. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure the line between no consensus and keep doesn't mean that much and I can see how someone would view it as consensus. Kotepho 06:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The line between them is that next time this article goes up for AfD, an army of inclusionists will vote to keep immediately solely on the basis that it was kept twice before, even though the first keep was based upon a turnout of 6 people, none of whom engaged in any sort of discussion, and the second keep was not truly a keep at all. — GT 08:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd suggest to GT that if he chooses to renominate the article for deletion and opens his rationale with "This was closed twice, but I dispute the first close because of foo and the second close because of bar. Please examine the article before voting 'keep' on the basis that it was kept twice before", people will pay attention. That has been my experience, at least. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I gather I'm going to have to do it that way, although I get the feeling if I list it again I'll only get a bunch more "I feel it in my gut" keep votes, as through 3 AfD's and a deletion review I'm still waiting for fact number one supporting her notability. — GT 08:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse Closure The first reason for my position is that a request to overturn a "keep" to a "no consensus" is almost meaningless. Although some would argue that a no consensus result makes another later AfD easier to fashion, the end result is the same.  In any event, a very compelling case would be needed for me to sanction the de minimis change, and this isn't.  More importantly, on the merits, I would have closed this exactly the same way. Xoloz 12:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure, can be re-nominated any time, if there are problems with significance / verifiability, tag the article - if it is tagged with for a month and nothing is done that makes a subsequent AfD easier to justify>  But actually it looks as if she is a prominent bioconservative, and this is just a crap article on a good subject. Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I added the tag. So is she prominent by virtue of the fact that her unsourced WP article says so or what? — GT 13:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See the bit where I said she looks as if she's a prominent bioconservative? That looks as if is the bit which needs to be established by sources, currently absent from the article. If it's not been sources or more categorically established after a month or so I will cheerfully vote delete. Drop me a note on my Talk page if I happen to miss the repeat nomination. Just zis Guy you know? 15:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure - carried out within reasonable admin. discretion. Metamagician3000 05:21, 8 May 2006 (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.