Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mexico: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:26, 2 February 2016

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Mexico. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Mexico|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Mexico. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mexico/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico/Community

Mexico

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 Nomination for deletion withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 08:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Gershenson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search in Google news reveals coverage from multiple reliable sources like this one in Spanish or this one from El Universal where it is reported he received an award for an app he developed. In google books there are also multiple hits, mainly as author. As an example even if it may not count as an independent source, this book in which he cooperated includes a brief bio. There seems to be enough independent and in depth coverage, and since the article does not violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not I believe that it meets our general notability guidelines.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I am uncertain how to comment given the field, because the contents above are something but the article still seems questionable. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Six papers with over 100 citations according to Google Scholar. That's enough to show anyone an authority in their subject. Iadd the most cited to the article. the refs above should be added also. Kku, it is not of benefit to add articles as incomplete as this one was and let other people do the necessary work to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination my error. Boleyn (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Californias (region)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is about the same region covered by The Californias, only after the Californias were divided between two sovereign countries. It is a short article that has never had a reference in it. There is no reason [whatever this article is supposed to be about] can't be covered at The Californias. I don't even know if this usage of "Californias" for a region is notable: I haven't bothered to check and nobody since the article was created in 2013 apparently has either. Srnec (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the physical region. The Californias is about a historic political entity that no longer exists. They are entirely separate subjects. I was in the middle of adding content and sourcing to the article when blocked by this hastily-added deletion nomination. Standard WP practice is to discuss these things on the Talk page before unilaterally taking such drastic action. The article's content, plus my blocked edits, can be found on the page Talk:The Californias (region). WCCasey (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WCCasey: The deletion notice doesn't block any editing. Improving the article while a deletion discussion is ongoing is definitely allowed. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 05:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WCCasey:You could still add your edits to the article if you want. I looked at the timing in the revision histories of the page and the talk page, and I think the deletion nomination just happened to be added while you were in the middle of editing the article (so it was just an edit conflict - your edits weren't actively being blocked). Alphius (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I wasn't accusing anyone of blocking my edit. As Alphius said, the deletion notice was posted while I was editing, so that I got sent to the "edit conflict" page when I tried to save it. When I tried to do the normal copy-paste-save to resolve the conflict, however, I was not allowed to save it. I just went back to the article page, however, tried the edit again in the normal manner, and had no problems. Thanks to all for the help. WCCasey (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on the basis that Srnec's comment I don't even know if this usage of "Californias" for a region is notable: I haven't bothered to check suggests they haven't read WP:BEFORE. clpo13_(talk) 16:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if notable, it can be covered at The Californias, which was a fluid thing anyway. I did not argue that it should be deleted because it wasn't notable, but a "merger" was out of the question since it had never been sourced. Srnec (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable synthesis. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 00:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more clarification: the geographical boundaries of the "region" are far different from the boundaries of the old Spanish province. WCCasey (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea seems to boil down to the one sourced sentence in the article: "The term may be used when discussing areas along both sides of the border between the United States and Mexico." This can be covered at The Californias. —Srnec (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge anything if needed afterwards, unlikely needed for two articles. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Mexico Proposed deletions

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==Mexico==
 <!-- New AFD discussions should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carlos_Gershenson}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Californias_(region)}}