This is a new thread for civil discussion about the deletion of the Nicolás Morás article from Spanish-language Wikipedia. I will start this by including an automatically translated version of the discussion page (the online translator I'm using has a 5000 character limit so this took a couple of go-rounds). I originally wasn't going to do this. I did omit a portion that appears to be from a known sockpuppet ("CPP") and which was left on the page in strikethrough. If you don't care for all this skip to the end and/or search for the other string of three dashes on a line by itself I have used to delineate the translated portion. ("Remove yourself" is apparently how "delete" was translated and "keep yourself" is how "keep" or "don't delete" was translated at least some of the time. Other acronyms appear to be specific to the Spanish-language version of Wikipedia and did not translate.) --- The following discussion is an archived deletion query. Please, do not modify it. The following comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (the article discussion or in a restoration consultation). No further edits should be made on this page. The result was Delete. Aleposta (discussion) 00:39 13 Jun 2019 (UTC) Nicolás Morás Nicolás Morás (edit | discussion | history | links | monitor | records) Search sources: «Nicolás Morás» - news · books · academic · images SRA for one month, in addition to other questions as a primary source and promotion of the biography. Defended Esteban (discussion) 22:08 30 May 2019 (UTC) Attention! If you came here because someone asked you or you followed a link from a forum or social network, please keep in mind that this is not a vote but a discussion to establish a consensus among the Wikipedia editors on whether a page is appropriate for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies to help us decide, and decisions are made based on the strength of the arguments presented, not a number of votes. However, if you want to participate in the process and express your opinions, you are welcome. Remember to presume good faith of others and sign your comments on this page adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments on possible special purpose accounts can be tagged with {{sust: Cpu | username}} Keep yourself Stay - I think the article as it is meets all the requirements to stay. The content is encyclopedically relevant. The knowledge of the biography is due to his career as a journalist and political activist and not to factors other than his abilities, sensationalism or heart programs. It is not about self-promotion, it is a notable public person for more than a single event, which is clear from the diverse and solid sources. I do not observe unsupported content or use of wikipedia as a primary source. In addition, other solid sources can be found on the web coinciding with those already listed. The current wording is accurate, precise and neutral. It complies with everything established for Wikipedia: Encyclopedic relevance and Wikipedia: Biographies of living people. --LefontQ (discussion) 14:18 31 May 2019 (UTC) delete Beers I have visited some of the links. In my opinion it is more of an agitator than a communicator. Within the media noise you get your voice to be heard slightly more. However, I do not observe that his figure is recognized as relevant to a certain ideological line both in Argentina and internationally. Apart from various interviews or press releases of opinion articles there is nothing else. Therefore, I am inclined to delete the entry .-- Nachobacter (discussion) 17:47 31 May 2019 (UTC) stay Stay Stay I already gave my arguments on the article discussion page. If necessary, I can copy and paste them here. Happy days Martin Xicarts (discussion) 13:51 2 Jun 2019 (UTC) delete Bórrese The character is irrelevant. The article seems to seek to promote it. None of the sources is reliable, or are blogs or promotional pages or are not independent sources of the biography, for example, links to YouTube videos created by him or related people to promote their ideas. References to the Indymedia forum, Webzine blog or social networks have no value for Wikipedia. The only sources that could be independent lead us to links that do not exist or can not be accessed (for example, I wanted to enter the link to Infobae, which is a known medium and which is accessed without payment and I am told that can access because they ask me to pay and "it is possible that the attackers are trying to steal your information (for example, passwords, messages or credit cards)" which I suspect are links to malicious sites. I did not even name the biographer, that is, they are misleading, other sources refer to unreliable sites, such as this Kontrainfo reference (and since we are, we should add Wikipedia to that list of sinister sites "supported by the Open Society Foundation" and that it is a great donor of those who sustain our work.) This source is reliable but the only thing about it is that it appears on the list of signatories, this reference could be used to an article about the group "Libertad & Equidad" but not for his biography since he does not tell us anything about its relevance. I want to say that anyone can sign something. I also tried to enter the references that put to HispanTV but it appeared to me that «It was not possible to find the IP address of the server». In short, many references but most misleading, not found, unreliable or not named. Unknown character in my country that probably seeks to promote. Career without encyclopedic relevance. Does not comply with the established in Wikipedia: Encyclopedic relevance. --Jalu (discussion) 18:06 2 June 2019 (UTC) Care Attention! I do not want to fall into sensationalism, but why the remark that the Open Society Foundation is a "great donor" of Wikipedia? I think it has no relevance in this debate if the article in question speaks well or badly of Open Society, nor should it be understood that it is better not to speak badly of said foundation just because it provides donations to the page. It's the only thing that stands out from your comment, the rest seems to me to be in line with the debate. Martin Xicarts (discussion) 13:39 3 June 2019 (UTC) Comment Commentary This character still lacks a greater media notoriety ... That makes more merits to deserve to be in Wikipedia. Greetings. Marco M (posts) 00:08 4 jun 2019 (UTC) Comment Comment for the librarian who is going to close the query. LefontQ (disc. · Contr.) Is a CPP created to exclusively edit articles related to Nicolás Morás. From 2016 until the start date of this consultation. He had bleached his diff discussion so he would not see the different ads he received for promotional since he created the article. All his interventions in the TAB were to defend this article, and avoid its deletion, for example diff. Godivaciones (disc. · Contr.), On the other hand, is an account created after starting this query, CPP whose sole purpose seems to be that this article is not deleted. He has dedicated himself to proselytizing, de-legitimizing this consultation, inviting him to support: Enrique Cordero Chamarasca Vitor Waka Waka Marcomogollon Arkangel414 Verent Muago OneEuropeanHeart Sowairan It is very striking that, in all these invitations, he has forgotten to tell Hades7 (disc. · Contr.), Who had been opining about the lack of relevance of this biography, diff and who is the one who placed the template without relevance , diff. --Jalu (discussion) 17:43 6 Jun 2019 (UTC) delete Bereuse by not remembering me when proselytizing, intolerable. Just kidding. But well ... it smells like spam and the character does not stand out for its tremendous importance. Maybe later, with accounts less involved, going to the point, sneaking less trash and with a more sincere interest ... He has a lot of life ahead of Nicolás Morás, there is no hurry to create an article. strakhov (discussion) 09:05 7 Jun 2019 (UTC) delete Bórrese Besides the accounts involved, the article is irrelevant and is obviously promotional .-- Fixertool (discussion) 03:22 10 Jun 2019 (UTC) Keep yourself Stay really I do not see that the article has any self-promotion dyes, at any time I appreciate it. Regarding relevance, which is apparently the main problem here, I see that most of the sources used belong to media without any affiliation with the subject. When searching the web I find a lot of information about Morás, so I assume that media notoriety has. Likewise, its association with media such as Hispan TV and Telesur confirm my idea of ​​its relevance. Therefore, I think that the article should be maintained, also appreciating the improvements that have been made in recent days.Darthvader2 (discussion) 05:03 11 Jun 2019 (UTC) Keep yourself Stay - As other users said, I do not see self-promotion in the article (although certain paragraphs should be rewritten). There are sources and references in different parts of the article and I do not think that it seeks to generate controversy; in fact, it has a section where the "controversies" are mentioned. I do not see the difference between this article and that of, for example, Baby Etchecopar or Javier Milei, who also have controversies. Now, if we go with respect to relevance, I do not see why they consider that it does not have; the fact of being a journalist from the Argentine south does not make it less important than those of the Federal Capital. In fact, if we follow the line of relevance, in Wikipedia there are articles by less relevant people such as Charlotte Caniggia https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Caniggia or Barbara Vélez https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/ B% C3% A1rbara_V% C3% A9lez that are not just very relevant people, but "children of" other celebrities. In short, none of the arguments that are used to delete the article seems valid: 1. the article does not seem self-promoting because it also talks about disputes. 2. I do not think it is very relevant, since Wikipedia has articles from less relevant people (like the ones I mentioned above), added to the fact that I believe that the person is discredited a little because it is not Capital. 3. I DO NOT see that it breaks rules, since it contains sources and references. For all this, I vow to keep the article. DMAC89 (discussion) 18:08 June 11 2019 (UTC) -DMAC89 (discussion • contributions) has made few or no edition in other articles. Comment Comment Darthvader2 what improvements? DMAC89 can I ask you how did you get to this query? because I'm surprised to read that "you vote to keep this article", I'm surprised to see that you have 108 contributions in the main space of Wikipedia and since 2015 that you do not edit. How did you appear 4 years later and you entered directly to this opinion to give your opinion? You do not even know how to make an internal link to Charlotte Caniggia or Baby Etchecopar or Javier Milei. Also, what do the articles by Baby Etchecopar or Javier Milei have to do with it? How is the person being discredited because he or she is not a Capital? Who said that being a journalist from the Argentine south is less important than the ones from the Federal Capital? and, fundamentally, how do you know that it is from the south if the article does not say it? --Jalu (discussion) 18:23 11 Jun 2019 (UTC) I was observing the debate about maintaining or not maintaining this article, although some find errors in the links area for example, I will also deny link 10 because it is found to be in a private browsing. Perform a research on Nicolás Morás and showed results of interviews conducted on his personal opinion on the political situation of the country, and publication in independent newspapers and regional scope. Also watch a total of 37 videos of him offering interviews and debates on television and universities. Being an audiovisual source, it bases the validity of this article. Some users have commented on the topic of what is a more self-referential article perhaps it would be good if the article is re-edited and detected those links that will really have to be deleted because they do not have direct access. He is an independent journalist who is venturing into activities of his profession, every young journalist begins working with independent journalism and is something that should not be underestimated. That is why I share with DMAC89 his perspective of point two where he explains that anyone has an article in a wikipedia and that these characters are not very relevant. I observed that it is part of the "Civic Freedom and Equity Movement" this is proven in the work with respectable characters in the area of ​​culture and thinkers. - The previous unsigned comment is the work of Florencia Cayuela (disc. • contribs). 23:11 11 Jun 2019 (UTC) -Florencia Cayuela (discussion • contributions) has made few or no edition in other articles. Keep greetings, I do not intend to argue, but I want to reason my vote: I find it reasonable that the publication of the article may lead to the conclusion that it is self-promotional because of the way it was initially published and the way in which some users have intervened. However on the other hand the way in which it is judged so that it is discarded, so fervently in some cases, could also lead to think that there is this type of motivations but in the other sense. Even more after seeing the surprising argumentation in relation to the OSF of Mr. Soros that although it was noticed as irrelevant by another user immediately, but I think it has enough relevance that without any blush it is said that the donations of the OSF have some impact in the publication, discarding or deletion of an article in the Wikipedia according to the interests of this foundation according to the donations made to Wikipedia "because it is a great donor of those who support our work." Let's put the case upside down. Let's say that Mr. Morás makes a significant contribution to the Wikipedia cause. Would this be a determining factor to be considered relevant and articles related to it would be relevant? Skinny favor to our "free" encyclopedia. This calls me a lot of attention, because those who argued that the article was rejected rejected not only refute (which I applaud) but they went directly to suspect (which I do not applaud) the opinion of the other participants because of its recent incorporation or lack of activity, when it was enough to counteract them (as some have done) and when Wikipedia has as a principle the presumption of good faith and it would not be desirable for some editor or librarian to begin to point out the detractors of this page due to suspicions of act pro NGO, without some evidence. So we find an ad hominem argument that can come back as a boomerang on anyone. In this query the vehemence of the accusations, some argument lazy, etc. Everything can be used as a pretext to erase or incorporate the article, if we start pointing at each other. Undoubtedly throughout Latin America there are less relevant characters and situations that have overcome deletion queries or that have not even gone through this filter. And the only doubt that this article sends to consultation, tells me that it was not subject to quick deletion for something. In my opinion Mr. Morás has some relevance, not the greatest, nor the best, but some notoriety has reached with his journalistic work revealing financing schemes to politicians of various tendencies, reading about this was that I found about him. I invite you to leave arguments ad hominem aside and polish Wikipedia, including this article. A hug for everyone. Paramaconic (discussion) -Paramaconic (discussion • contributions) has made few or no edition in other articles. Comment Comment The reasoning of "your vote" is very interesting. Thank you. --Jalu (discussion) 01:10 Jun 12 2019 (UTC) delete Be A person with the name of who appears as vice president of the Foundation chaired by Mr. Moras], just offered me $ 25 to vote that the article is maintained. He even gave me "ideas" to use as arguments. The contact started on the Freelancer site and I have captures and links to the project. I do not know the sources of funding but the project had several applicants. It can be seen in Freelancer. The system will not let me publish the links I have the captures of the conversation but I do not know if it corresponds to publish them. Gachif83 (discussion) 01:37 12 Jun 2019 (UTC) gachif83 delete Be a journalist who has only done his work, there is no level of relevance beyond doing his job. --Chico512 13:32 Jun 12 2019 (UTC) remove yourself. What beautiful and ethical speeches from the users who come here to defend the indefensible. Self-promotion, lack of neutrality, accounts with a particular purpose, references sought with a magnifying glass, what else do we want? It would be good if they really edited something acceptable in an encyclopaedia and that they did not ride on the podium of political speeches. And to know thoroughly what is Wikipedia, so they would know that the free word is nothing but a bad translation that we drag from remote times. It is free because you do not have to pay a dime to consult it, copy it, etc. But the freedom of opinion within the texts of the articles does not exist here, it is very much against the neutrality that we demand. Lourdes, messages here 13:43 12 Jun 2019 (UTC) Comment Comment Are these types of campaigns a variant of what experts call astroturfing? Hmmmmmmm how delicious. I love the smell of rottenness in the mornings. Also in the afternoon. strakhov (discussion) 15:42 12 Jun 2019 (UTC) remove yourself. It has no relevance. Also, I see that there is a certain distortion. The references do not say what the article says. For example: Liberty and Equity is not a "movement," as the entradilla states, but a "platform," as the biography defines (ref 37). - Silviaanac (discussion) 17:47 12 Jun 2019 (UTC) Comment Comment To keep in mind I think that is called CPP. Lourdes, messages here 17:55 12 Jun 2019 (UTC) Information Information: to the librarian who closes, if you have any doubt about the handling of the query and you want some tangible proof of what the gachif83 said, I will offer it to you by mail. A well-weighted greet. strakhov (discussion) 19:31 12 Jun 2019 (UTC) Keep yourself Stay Good afternoon, in my opinion thanks to the editions that have been made in the last month, the article no longer has any statement as a primary source. I do not see that it has a lack of neutrality or that it is of a promotional nature. About the sources, I agree that they are quite, however, mostly medium and large media and the links I reviewed work well. I think Morás's journalistic activity is a relevant article in Wikipedia terms and therefore it should be kept on the platform. This without rejecting the idea of ​​improving it, which would be a separate question. Angela.O (discussion) Care Attention! for the librarian to close this query. This is the first contribution of Herlinda21 (disc. · Contr.) On Wikipedia. Comment comment Hello, Herlinda21. Welcome to Wikipedia. There is an old Chinese proverb that prays So much swimming to die on the shore. It is possible that it is not Chinese. strakhov (discussion) 21:00 Jun 12 2019 (UTC) Comment Comment It means something like so much effort ... in the end ... not at all. I think I did not swing too much if I told you that this biography is going to be deleted. The masks have fallen. Some people would like to stop, well, that, swim. Because the article will be deleted, but the number in the deletion query will be engraved in indelible ink. And the image that leaves a certain person is bad, bad bad. strakhov (discussion) 21:21 Jun 12 2019 (UTC) delete Bórrese The relevance of the biography is not enough to have your own article in the wikipedia, besides that I consider it promotional. It is concerned that there were CPP puppet accounts for their manipulation. Maleiva (discussion) 22:47 Jun 12 2019 (UTC) stay Stay Stay I can not comment on the relevance of an article referring to a political activist. We can not ignore that questioning the relevance of these social actors is not innocent. It is a dialelo that we should write "relevant" articles based only on what the mass media reports. The shortage of articles and that these are neutral are anathema to this free encyclopedia. Our task is to offer users information about people that even in our opinion may seem irrelevant. We all know that correcting political articles is a difficult, sensitive task in which the quality of information is especially tested. This information may be relevant for some users who are in favor or even against this alleged character. If the alleged character is irrelevant, no one will enter this article or anyone will read it. For this reason I am opposed to deletion. In my opinion, article should be totally restructured and summarized. The format should not suggest political propaganda as it is currently. The article should provide sufficient and neutral information to understand who this activist is and what he thinks. HANNAN Orange color.jpg23: 47 12 Jun 2019 (UTC) comment Comment Hello HANNAN: what a pleasure to say hello to you after all these years! Since 2015 you did not edit anything at all. Nothing at all. Well, actually many years ago, since 2012 you are not really active. The return of old Wikipedians is always good. Welcome again! A joy that you have taken advantage of this CdB to reencounter with the community! - Fixertool (discussion) 00:07 June 13 2019 (UTC) Comment Comment I have my doubts. On the one hand, the character, in itself, seems relevant to me (even if he is a controversialist rather than an intellectual); However, I am worried about this wave of users who came to defend this article, because more than a spontaneous reaction, it seems to be a recruitment other than Wikipedia. I do not have much evidence, but in places like Workana and Freelancer (I see that it was mentioned before) they have been calling people to answer in erasure queries. Therefore, I am inclined to think that the article is self-promotional. --Luis Alvaz (discussion) 23:55 Jun 12 2019 (UTC) The previous discussion is kept as a record of the debate. Please, do not modify it. This page should not be edited anymore. --- What I gather from this discussion (given the half-assed and partially mangled English typical of automatic translation in the late 2010s), is that the article appears to have been deleted because it appeared to be more self-promotional than encyclopedic. I don't think feminism or other political ideology entered into it (what Jalu appears to be saying in what was translated as "the character is irrelevant"). That someone would assume radical feminism is behind such a decision is something I find rather sad. As nominally off-topic as this may be, I wouldn't mind discussing this further here. However, I would ask that in this thread, we have no personal attacks and use neutral terms to refer to the parties involved, in particular avoiding the use of slurs such as one perpetuated by a certain conservative US talk show host. Let's keep the debate in this thread rubbish-free and focus on the facts and the issues, not personal attacks. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com