Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge S. del Villar G.

Jorge S. del Villar G.

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

non notable author of a single non-notable book (see AfD for the almost identical article on the book, above--an ) His father is notable, and certainly his great great grandfather. "Advisor" to someone notable is not notable. Interviews are press releases, not notability DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A relatively wide range of secondary sources, proving his notability. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 20:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following I am posting the opinion of Wikipedia professional editors, backed by Wikipedia itself who had positive views about my article (Price Theory: Economics is Mistaken) and recommended me to move this article into mainspace. The first one approved of the subject matter, but recommended external sources, (which Wikipedia doesn't have a mandatory preestablished number of them) The second one, recommended to put the article into mainspace and the third one was surprised by the editor who established the article (about the author) for deletion. I would find really serious and unfortunate that Wikipedia’s recommended editors wouldn’t have the criteria to establish from the beginning that the subject matter was irrelevant.

[17:57] <+CharlieEchoTango> iNeedHelp00, you'll need to show that there is significant coverage of the book in third-party publications[17:58] <+CharlieEchoTango> and use book reviews to back the information you provide, not the book itselfHi. What do you think of my article now? FC 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabian Colinas (talk • contribs)

I think it very well written now, the tone is correct, it is properly styled. You could probably move it to mainspace now. Best,Alpha Quadrant talk 23:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I just declined your CSD. Was there something I missed? Please let me know. --Kudpung (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC

The book appears in the Library of Congress on Line Catalog, since it was an American publishing house the one who published it in Spanish. Although the book was written in December, 2010, it has been so far recommended in two published Mexican magazines. The subject matter is of extreme importance because of its uniqueness; it is obvious for any rational person that there is something wrong with the world economy, and this young author offers explanations, that other most laureated authors don’t. The subject matter is what is notable. FC 21:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: Some of the remarks in the above comment by User:FC appear to be copied and pasted from a talk page discussion. Please note that I have not commented in this AfD. Kudpung (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on what's written in the article as of now, he doesn't seem to pass WP:AUTHOR. It's possible that his sole book may be notable however, as odd as that may seem, but I'm not sold on that (see the other AfD). Tijfo098 (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable author, per WP:AUTHOR; I'm taking no stand on the book, although I am hearing WP:ILIKEIT on that. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the article and included more sources to support it; please read it now. Consider: “The person has created a work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” (Hereby, there are 3 periodical articles and reviews about the book itself plus 2 international electronic interviews) plus several other articles about the author’s work, apart from the book. In addition, the sources either suggest or literally express, “ the book’s value resides in that it could be setting the basis for the development of new theories that could modify economic science.” I don't state it as clear, not to break the neutrality issue.FC 21:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"could be setting the basis for the development of new theories that could modify economic science"? And I could be the rightful Emperor of Mexico; but it's not likely. On a more serious note, please note Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we are not a venue to publicize "groundshattering new ideas that could change the world if you just let me publicize them" or original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t understand the sarcasm about my work as a professional editor (the Mexican Emperor). None of the links you posted are related to the quotation I mentioned. The phrase I used was a quotation from an absolutely indisputable and reliable published source, not made by the subject of the article, by other parties with conflicts of interests or by an eager fan- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; this is not an unverifiable speculation, not about a future project (the book has been published and according to reliable sources a success, it is absolutely properly referenced, the quotation was not the editor’s own opinion or analyses but as I mentioned, it was an editorialized opinion of an excellent source "groundshattering new ideas that could change the world if you just let me publicize them"; and original research refers to opinions not published by reliable sources, again I mention the unarguable and verifiable source that has an excellent opinion of Jorge S. del Villar G. FC 12:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabian Colinas (talk • contribs)

the only sources that count for opinions of the quality of books are from published, independent, 3rd party reviews. What an author's friends or associates or professional acquaintances may let him put on the book jacket or otherwise say is basically in the nature of press releases or advertisements--they are indiscriminate, and only include the favorable comments. When it does revolutionize economics, there will be no shortage of such published sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We might be facing an IDL WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue here. The fact that you don’t like the sources does not mean they don’t comply with Wikipedia’s policies. They absolutely do: some sources that speak either about the book or about the author include Mexico Social journal, whose all of its board members are included in Wikipedia (Spanish): Mario Luis Fuentes (president); Jusus Kumate; Rolando Cordera, among others; MVS Comunicaciones; The Baltimore Sun; A sindicated column by Miguel Angel Granados Chapa. Check any of these in Wikepedia itself. In order to delete the present article, Wikipedia’s policies would have to be modified, specifying much more precisely which sources would and would not be acceptable. If Wikipedia’s policies would only accept scientific journals from north American academic institutions; then you would be totally right. However, according to Wikipedia’s policies, not according to your own believes of when a source should and shouldn’t be accepted; the 17 references are not just perfectly accepted, but they make an example of how articles should be referenced. Something similar happens with the issue about notability. According to Wikipedia’s policies, the notability is absolutely justified. Wikipedia’s policies would have to be modified in order to delete the present article, making much more clear which cases are subject of notability and which don’t. For instance, if only cabinet level government officials; if only writers who have been awarded a Nobel Prize; then you would be totally right. However that is not Wikipedia’s policy at the moment. As a matter of fact, if the subject had been not advisor of a Mexican Foreign Minister, but of a U.S. Secretary of State; if he had been 4 year columnist not of the largest newspaper in Mexico, but in the U.S.; if he had promoted legislation not in Mexico City but in California; if he conducted a radio talk show not in one of the largest Spanish speaking communications consortium, but in an American one; if he had unveiled an important policy issue not about a Mexican presidential ex candidate, but about an American one; I believe this article would not be nominated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabian Colinas (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]