Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolás Morás

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Salvio 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Morás

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Nicolás Morás (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journalist. Fails

WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 22:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 23:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 23:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable journalist, well known work and participation in the mass media
    WP:BASIC. User:LiebeZenPeace (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
As a consumer of Spanish-speaking mass media, especially Argentine, I personally do not believe in the particular remarkableness of this journalist. He could be notable only within a certain particular audience, but not so much as to have great importance within the mass media as he is not widely recognized. His most important work only includes three documentary films that are also not prominent or noteworthy. I think that
talk) 02:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Notability depends on the article containing independent sources
Sputnik, and Telesur, and official media from Argentina: La Voz del Interior, Infobae, Canal22, and Pressenza. Without mention his credibility, which, far from being questioned, his notability was built on his work where he uses multiple sources to maintain objectivity and partiality.LiebeZenPeace (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Firstly, thanks for clarifying your viewpoint. Secondly, you mention that he "appears in (…) media of great international scope". Altough that might be actually true, I still think that the sourcing on the page is very poor.
talk) 23:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Let's get to the point. I put the links and references there to demonstrate the trajectory of his career, not to validate his arguments, personally according to his sources, which by the way he uses sources of all categories in his private investigations, but it is not the point, but to verify that he has been in those places, not if he is biased or not, it is precisely a biography of a character that I think I have argued his remarkable, since he appears in many media from all strata, so he has a large number of people interested in your subject, which is proven, and that is why your article is convenient here, and it is fair. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand what you are saying, you say they only quote him on blogs
WP:NPOV, your accusation seems to me sincerely exaggerated. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
There's a photo of you, next to this article's subject, calling him "a friend," on Instagram. I would definitely call that a relationship. As per Wikipedia policy you are to disclose potential COIs and in fact you are
barred from meta-discussions such as AfD on articles where you have a COI. --MewMeowth (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you investigating me? Well, if you are so interested in my private life, I can tell you that I met him, on the street, and I liked him, because I agree with his rigor and his work, but I do not have much relationship with him, in fact, We met when I was on vacation, once, you can't say that we are personal friends. I just hope you don't think that's why I have no right to write an article about him, because Wikipedia does not prohibit it, actually I have been neutral and descriptive, for example I put in Controversies that he is critical of Zionism but that there are libertarian circles where they are critical of his position, where you see partiality, he is concrete, but I do not find real reasons to delete the article, let's be fair. But I think that you are harassing me when looking for me on Instagram, and that you are boasting in bad faith, with that argument I can say that you are wanting to eliminate it because you openly have beliefs contrary to those that Nicolás Morás maintains, but nevertheless I do not do it
WP:GF. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@LiebeZenPeace: You are calling him a friend, then you have a COI, and will need to withdraw. I will post a note up to coin tonight. scope_creepTalk 08:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:BIASED, please i am asking you impartiality and consideration. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
barred from meta-discussions such as AfD on articles where you have a COI." – He is certainly allowed to participate in an AfD discussion relating to a topic in which he may have a conflict of interest. He just needs to disclose his personal relationship with the subject first, and he also needs to avoid creating or contributing to articles in which his biases can influence his discretion. I don't see this as a case of paid editing. To me, it's an acquaintance of the article subject who wants to help raise his profile by giving him his own Wikipedia page. If this is the first time he's done something like this, then it's fair to assume that he didn't realize his editing would be seen as a conflict of interest. I don't think it's fair for anyone to label LiebeZenPeace a single-purpose account on the basis of one ill-advised article. Kurtis (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:SOAPBOX? Of course, the article will get removed on AfD by the mere fact of not having a single valid source that would merit its existence on Wikipedia, but it's very concerning to see how often Wikipedia turns a blind eye to obvious cases of paid, PR or SEO editing. --MewMeowth (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@MewMeowth: Yes, I'm aware that he didn't follow COI guidelines, which is why I mentioned it in the first place. My view is that there isn't enough evidence to implicate LiebeZenPeace in paid editing. He probably wanted to create an article for someone who he personally met and considered notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page, and then after he created it, he searched for it on Google and was concerned that it didn't show up. Is it possible that he has a genuine conflict of interest and is receiving some sort of compensation for his edits? Sure it is. But until we can establish that there is a pattern of such editing, or we get some sort of confirmation that he's engaging in advocacy, I don't think it's fair to call LiebeZenPeace a single-purpose account. Kurtis (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment LiebeZenPeace is a SPA and likely a UPE. I never noticed. And the reason I posted this.
    WP:PAID disclosure on the editors page. scope_creepTalk 11:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I have to tell you that you are subjectively interpreting my concerns, since I asked that question because I did not know about it, and I had not seen another user asking about it, I must tell you that you are not only biased in your comment, you also incur as the Another user in the lack of good faith
WP:LEADER, that accusing me with bad faith and obsessively investigating me. I still do not know about some policies like the ones you have put me in, I do not receive money, I am making this contribution for reasons that I have stated and that you decided to ignore and speculate instead. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP: POPULARITY. I would greatly appreciate you taking the time to view my arguments in this discussion. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
You not practicing
WP:AGF, by pestering an editor who seems to be in good standing. OK, you have posted your arguments. Let the others and the Afd proceed at its own pace, please. scope_creepTalk 09:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete – While it is obvious that
    BLP, it's better to err on the side of caution. While I have no prejudice against creating an article for him down the road should his accomplishments merit one, he doesn't have a substantial enough repertoire at this time to be included. Kurtis (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

@Kurtis: I hope you investigate better the next time, each video that he uploads to his channel exceeds at least a hundred views, reaching two hundred, three hundred and even a million and eight hundred thousand views as in his last documentary about the pope.Few libertarians in South America achieve this, has made many complaints that could not be refuted, is subject to "critical attention" as some have wanted but without success. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicolás_Morás&oldid=970844116"