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 arguments for retention (more specifically, meeting the WP:GNG) that I saw outweighed the reasons for deletion. –MuZemike 06:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD doesn't prevent renaming from occuring, however, as several users have recommended that. –MuZemike 08:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)[edit]

Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR. No real indication of notability other than writing a number of books. What makes this author special or notable apart from anyone else who writes books? No independent third-party refs to establish notability. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that many of these googlehits are about different people of the same name.--Slp1 (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATH? The article doesn't say anything about him being a ballplayer... it says he's a professor and a writer. Still fails WP:AUTHOR. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read what I wrote. I didn't say that he was a ballplayer, just that a ballplayer who had accomplished a fraction as much as he has would be an automatic keep, and I am challenging the double-standard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did read what you wrote. WP:ATH has nothing to do with WP:AUTHOR. The converse of your logicwould be that WP:ATH could be revised to conform to WP:AUTHOR. If you want to revise the guidelines start a discussion at village pump. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guidelines are descriptive of the understanding of current consensus at they time they were written, rather than prescriptive. If there no consensus here to follow the double-standard, it is not binding; if there are frequent rejections of the guidelines, they need to be revised to more accurately describe the reality of the decisions being made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually cleaned this last issue up, to my satisfaction at least.--Slp1 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy could be trimmed down to a sentence or two. The book was published 10 years ago. Nothing can be undone about it. Borock (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's wrong to keep an article about an author that's just a book list if it is somehow understood that he is important in his country. Not strictly WP policy but at least interested people will get some info. Borock (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the single books if they are notable could have individual articles which would be better than a list of the books that are not notables being included. Your comment sounds like a rename or redirect to list of books published by Juan Manuel . At this time none of his individual books have an aticle written about them. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy is what is written about. It's not really our choice to decide what's notable or not, authorities decide for an encyclopedia. The controversy has pages in a couple of books. A list of an author's books is a pretty standard part of the article. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the controversy is what is written about then rename the article the controversy around the book "Man of Ashes " there is close to nothing biographical about this person , a bio is a life story, this article is a list of books that appear to be not notable and the excessive section as regards this so called controversy from 20 years ago.If the article is kept then this section should be trimmed for weight as the section is 95 percent of the biography.Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The article has been referenced using unreliable secondary sources, including those by Ilan Stavans. The following link concerns the reliability of Stavans: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/13/books/be-both-outsider-insider-czar-latino-literature-culture-finds-himself-under.html Stavans attacked Mr. Rodriguez for having supposedly usurped Salomon Isacovici's book Man of Ashes in his book ' The Inveterate Dreamer: Essays and Conversations on Jewish Culture'. Not only are his accusations distorted, but also blatantly false. For example, Stavans claims Mr. Rodriguez was an ex-jesuit priest, but he does not say where he got such information. Considering the NYT article, Stavans is highly unreliable and should not be sourced on this page. Su Di and Cynthia Ozick are just as biased.

- Since I started the article, and now it is filled with libelous information with the sole purpose of denigrating the author, I either suggest the secondary sources be eliminated or the page deleted. After all, the page itself is a stub and has little information. Also,wikipedia does not cover a controversy well if doesn't include any information arguing against the allegations made against Rodriguez. It might be best just to delete it altogether.

Salomon Isacovici - In addition, the page on Salomon Isacovici uses the same unreliable sources to discredit Juan Manuel Rodriguez. There is primary source evidence of copyright contracts which is not being allowed due to Wikipedia's policy of only using secondary sources. Nevertheless, discrediting the primary source information and relying on evidence like that of Stavans is ludicrous! Once again, I suggest that the sources be reconsidered and that either the page be deemed controversial and deleted or allow the usage of the primary source copyright material. As it is currently, there is a lot of erroneous material.

- These two sources are worrisome, as both confuse the existing controversy and harm Mr. Rodriguez by discrediting his authorship of the book 'Man of Ashes' and by sourcing unreliable books that purposefully tarnish the reputation of the author. I can't think of a worse thing for wikipedia to do, than allow disreputable sources and tarnish someone's reputation. Hoolio9690 (talk)Hoolio9690 —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoolio9690 states that he is not Rodriguez see here. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator is NOT the subject of the article. Someone just assumed that. It is confusing for people to keep saying that. It was more confusing before he explicitly denied it,[7] but it remains confusing for editors to keeping saying it. So, there is NO subjects request to discuss. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I apologize for misunderstanding this diff [8] as a claim that the article was autobiographical.--Slp1 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've undone the relist. This may be closed by an administrator at any time. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At issue seems to be notability. He needn't be notable by academic standards if he is notable by some other criteria. A notable controversy involving academic matters need only meet normal notability criteria. If he was notable for being a parttime clown that would work too even if he is also an academic. There was some concern about BLP, this suggests that some controversy about him exists making it likely he is notable ( assuming these are from RS). Vs athlete, certainly "other crap exists" doesn't help but presumably there are some consistent criteria people are after and some passing consideration may be worthwhile. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the books are notable just that no one has written an article yet. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if they're notable, the author is, and if the notability of the book is minor, the discussion should be at the author's page, not an article on the book itself. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Books don't usually contain pages about an incident involving a non-notable author. Or, are you arguing that is the case, that the incident is discussed without any of the participants being notable? That seems unlikely. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing that this man is, based on the sources provided, notable only for this one dispute, which is in itself mainly notable because it involves the possible "suppression" of the memoir of a Holocaust survivor, Salomon Isacovici. Isacovici is notable enough for WP article since a book about his life has been published by a reputable press. In contrast, no evidence of secondary sources (reviews, appreciations, articles) about Rodriguez's other publications or about his life has been found. In terms of the secondary material we have available, he's only notable for the one event, which puts him squarely in the BLP one event frame. So yes, I believe the Man of Ashes incident is notable, but that we don't need an article on Rodriguez himself; our BLP guidelines require us to consider the effect of an unbalanced, unrepresentative article on the life of a living person. In addition, the creator, Hoolio9690, who based on the documents s/he has access to is someone very close to the subject, is arguing for deletion, a desire that I take fairly seriously. --Slp1 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't reach the same conclusion. The Holocaust survivor is unique among such survivors because he's Romanian and Latin American. His notability arises from a book whose authorship is controversial. The reviewers of the controversy speak about Rodriguez as if he is notable in himself, mentioning that he is well-known for being a Jesuit, and an Ecuadorian educator. They don't, in their discussions of the controversy, dismiss him as a nobody claiming credit for something, as is the case with minor authors who have contributed to say television treatments or songs or books, and then claim the whole thing was their idea. In addition, the press itself could not entirely dismiss him as a ghost writer or entirely dismiss his claims that he wrote the book as a work of fiction about the Holocaust survivor. Hoolio9690 is just one more COI person saying too many things to really follow. It's typical in biographies and company articles: the article has to be one giant screaming bad publicity attachment or they run off pouting, "delete." I'm editing two other badly written articles, badly written for the same reason as this one: serious COI interference with writing the article. And both those pages also have editors who've decided: if wikipedia doesn't write it their way it should be deleted. Waste everyone's time trying to pull a free publicity coup courtesy of wikipedia as if they're the first one ever in the universe who thought of it, then demand the whole thing be gone when they can't use it as easily and effectively as desired. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough to say writers about the controversy "speak about Rodriguez as if he is notable in himself" and/or make deductions from what they don't say. If Rodriguez is truly notable as an author or a professor, it should be straightforward to find secondary sources showing that this is the case. But nobody has found a thing. Not one. Ergo, we have a one event living person, until proved otherwise.
I'm a bit disturbed by the tone and content of rest of your post. Suffice to say that WP is not a game of "fight the COI editor", with articles as the punching bag. In this case, we are talking about the consequences on a living, breathing human of the actions of a family member/friend who now recognizes his/her mistake. --Slp1 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2010 (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.
More