Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Rótulo

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 Mr.Z-man 15:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Rótulo

Daniel Rótulo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Doesn't appear to quite establish notability, fails WP:PROF. Wizardman 15:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Something I just noticed, based on the original creator this article could very well be a WP:COI and be a violation of WP:AUTO. Wizardman 15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Probably not notable by WP:PROF guidelines, but I think he's included for his involvement in the "Argentina-Uruguay pulp mills dispute", for which he got the article in La República. I'm not qualified to decide on whether that makes him notable in his locality or not. Thomjakobsen 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• comment per Thomjakobsen, I think he fails WP:PROF, and absent an article in english on the subject of "Argentina-Uruguay pulp mills dispute" I cannot judge whether 1) the dispute itself qualifies as a historically notable event, and 2) whether his role in it is sufficient for him to inherit encyclopedic notability. My guess is not, but that's just a guess. Leaning towards delete, but pleading ignorance... Pete.Hurd 17:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm leaning towards a very weak keep on this one. Do we have an article about this paper mill dispute? GlassCobra 17:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I do understand Spanish. He seams notable from what I have read in his article and references. Callelinea 18:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If the only notability claimed is to do with the pulp mill dispute (which does not yet appear to have an article), perhaps the article should be moved and stubbed to refocus on that? The subject's other achievements do not, as yet, seem to meet WP:BIO. Espresso Addict 20:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The pulp mill incident seems to have been important enough to merit an article. Like the preceding commentators, I am unsure about Rotulo. It looks like he created and wrote the article himself, which is not necessarily a violation of WP policies (it's just discouraged). But despite that, I wonder whether one very short newspaper article establishes notability. My guess is not and I tend to delete. --Crusio 21:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Borrar segun WP:PROF. Is not notable by the standard at BIO or PROF per the references provided. Eusebeus 23:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• delete fails to establish notability. Iamchrisryan 13:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article asserts, but does not establish, the notability of the subject. --Stormbay 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Stormbay. Marcus22 15:05, 9 October 2007 (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.