Civil discussion on the deletion of the Nicolás Morás article from Wikipedia (Spanish language)

Shawn K. Quinn skquinn at
Tue Jul 2 17:20:14 PDT 2019

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)


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 |

    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


    Waka Waka


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

    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 or Barbara Vélez 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

    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

        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

Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at>

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list