Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guillermo Espinosa Rodríguez

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 keep. The consensus is to keep. I even looked at the accusation of canvassing, and found that the notifaction was neutral and appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Espinosa Rodríguez

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

I don't think this page has any WP merit. The fact that there are three reliable sources on the matter is neither here nor there: these sources - Freedom House, Ifex and CPJ - report on all cases of action against any journalist anyhere in the world. In fact, the information is often shared, so it is possible that it all comes from one and the same original source. I am one of their correspondents and as much as I would like to stand up for a fellow journalist, I don't see that this merits a page on WP. Anyone can go to any of the CPJ/ IFEX/ FH annual reports/ media freedom indexes, pull out a random name and then find that journalist in the other two publications. Are we now going to create pages about all 300 journalists cited each year by the CPJ, FH and Ifex working for never-heard-of publications? Not necessarily a definitive argument, but it is telling that the Spanish WP has nothing on Guillermo Espinosa Rodríguez or the Agencia de Prensa Libre Oriental. Very unlikely that a news agency (we are not talking about a small one-page village newspaper, but a NEWS AGENCY) would go unnoticed to thousands of contributors to the Spanish WP. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The idea that an article should be written about every reporter whose career is described in the CPJ is one that would help to expand the encyclopedia. In addition to the CPJ and related reports, the subject of this biography appears to have been elected or chosen delegate to Cuba Independiente y Democratica (CID) in Santiago, Cuba. He is referenced as a notable blogger in this news item from Martí Noticias, a mainstream news source. I think he crosses the line into notability. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. I added a few more sources. There are plenty more. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable journalist, certainly wasn't a speediable deletion candidate.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a delegate of a party that is so insignificant that nobody has ever felt the need ro create a page about it here in the WP? Not even in Spanish? That's grabbing at straws. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable not because he is "important" or "significant", which are very subjective concepts, but because many reliable independent sources have taken note of him. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin For the record, Aymatth2, your vote will not be counted and your comments will be disregarded, as you were brought here by Blofeld. It is called canvassing, and it is illegal. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No laws have been broken. Blofeld asked for my views: "Somebody is trying to speedy delete Guillermo Espinosa Rodríguez. Notable?" He could not know how I would respond. I found the subject interesting, added some content, and gave reasons here why the article should be kept. The decision to keep will be based on the evidence of notability, not on a vote count. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless totally rewritten. This is a notable topic and Wikipedia should have information about it. However, some vital information is missing, while other information is accepted from biased sources. For example, the article says Espinosa was a part time reporter, but it doesn't say for what news outlet. Or was he a freelance journalist? It says that he filed stories, but not whether they were published. It says "he was told to get another job", but doesn't say by whom. It says he was arrested "for his activities on the 6th anniversary of the arrest of 75 activists", but doesn't say what the activities were. It seems he was later arrested for "contempt of authority" when he was out at a protest while under house arrest; the same thing would probably happen in any country, "contempt of court", and isn't an international incident. The text has weasel words like "seem to have triggered his arrest". The article is being used to promote a point of view, and has no counterbalancing information from Cuban official news or government sources. Even though I agree with this point of view myself, Wikipedia policy is that it is not to be used as a soapbox. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are valid criticisms, but reasons for improving the article rather than deleting it. The difficulty is that the subject is widely discussed by sources hostile to the Cuban regime, and apparently not even mentioned by the official Cuban press. I think it accurately reports what the sources say. Any improvements to the wording would be welcome. Possibly sources that may be considered biased should be named? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to fix if it's kept. For example, it is named as though it's a biographical article about Guillermo Espinosa, but it is overloaded with info about his arrests, and has no basic info such as birthdate and place, where he lived and worked as a nurse, his education, whether he is married, etc., - nothing that is irrelevant to the agenda that's being pushed. Nothing about how he came to be a journalist who employed him, or whether he wrote on other topics besides controversial ones. I believe that a new article should be written with proper balance on various aspects of his life, with a section not more than 25% stating that he had filed news reports on topics that were not approved of by the government, for example ___, had taken part in protests about ___, was placed under house arrest for social dangerousness (if this can be verified), and that his arrest was the subject of a lot of press coverage outside of Cuba, (blue numbers here), and that a number of organizations such as ____ are protesting his arrest. In the mean time, I don't believe that the current POV article should be left in the encyclopedia on the chance that one day it will be improved. Someone should agree to take this on right away if it's not to be deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to take a look at this article yesterday, found the topic interesting, dug around for sources and put in what I found with no attempt to push any point of view. There may be some other information somewhere way down in the search results, or offline, but what you see is what is readily available online. If I had found any more, like birth date and place, schooling, employees etc. I would certainly have put it in. But the subject is notable for the incidents described. The sources seem solid, and there is no reason to doubt the facts presented. More information from other sources would certainly improve the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable; sources are reliable enough. Miniapolis 16:12, 22 July 2013 (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.