Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvira Arellano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Elvira Arellano

Elvira Arellano (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable subject, no different from the millions of other illegal aliens L0b0t 15:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per my nomination. L0b0t 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. People who cause governments to act are notable, and the Mexican government asking the US to not deport her is causing a government to act. More sources would be nice, but it doesn't matter. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Every single action taken by every single government in human history has been caused by people. How does this make one notable? L0b0t 16:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep it! -Chicaneo 07:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Previous comments: This article does not pass the 100 year test (future speculation) i.e., -- "In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?" Nor does it pass the 100 year test (past speculation) i.e., -- "If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today?" See WP:BIO for notability guidelines. I agree with LObOt, the subject matter of this article is no different from the millions of other illegal alien stories frequently heard about in the news these days. …Chicaneo 17:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment99% of the rock band articles, album articles, athlete articles, and politician articles would fail the same test. Edison 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep current event. Give the article time to develop. --evrik ^(talk) 17:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The place for current events is WikiNews, not Wikipedia. — Haeleth Talk 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you cite where that is official policy? --evrik ^(talk) 20:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, from the article: "On November 14, 2006, Saulito Arellano appeared before Mexican lawmakers." How many illegal immigrants do you know that have appeared before a national legislature? Plenty of sources written to show notability, and 100-year test is a suggestion, not an actual notability criteria. hateless 17:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Testimony before a govt. subcommittee, especially one of a foreign government, does not automatically confer notability. I have to go before the House Armed Services Committee several times per year. Should I get an article in the encyclopedia based soley on that? L0b0t 18:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If you can find 30 articles about you in major national publications, then by all means you are notable enough for an article. Edison 19:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If you are an illegal immigrant, yes. Illegal immigrants are among the least vocal groups ever of political consequence, for a great many reasons. For one to get such an audience is very notable. Besides, as I pointed out earlier, multiple independent sources of information is enough to confer notability per WP:BIO. And as a last point, the "foreignness" of a government is irrelevant, this is a world-wide encyclopedia. hateless 18:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment In this case, the nationality of the govt. in question takes the wind out of the sails of your argument, she is a CITIZEN of the country whose govt. she testified before. If she were to speak before the U.S. govt. then she would be an illegal immigrant speaking before a govt. and that would be a wee bit more notable. A Mexican citizen speaking before the Mexican govt. is an everyday event. L0b0t 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You're spinning. You might as well say she's a woman and they regularly testify before Congress, thus she's not notable. The point remains is that she is a member of a class of people who individually has rarely had an wide or powerful audience. She has two, the Mexican Congress and the North American news media. See the cited sources, again. hateless 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You've both got me spinning. She did not testify, her 7 year old son Saulito did. Saulito is a United States citizen who testified before the foreign government of Mexico on his mother's behalf. Both of these individuals are from groups that rarely have a wide or powerful audience: children & "illegal" immigrants. - Chicaneo 07:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a very important event. Illegal immigration is one of the hottest political topics today. This woman is at the forefront of that debate and she has become a symbol. She came into the United States illegally and gave birth to her son here. While she is holed up in that church and sending her son to Washington and Mexico to plead on her behalf, there has been talk about whether U.S. born children of illegal immigrants should be automatically afforded U.S. citizenship. This woman is making history. There is something about her or illegal immigration in the newspapers at least once a week. At first, it was only in the Chicago papers, but now that it has been picked up by CNN, I think the article deserves to stay. If she is not notable, then I'd say at least 20% of the articles on people in Wikipedia also deserve deletion.Crazydog 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You are correct. At least 20% of the articles on people in WIkipedia do deserve deletion. WP:INN - the fact that there are other articles here that shouldn't be does not affect the merits of this individual case. — Haeleth Talk 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She is the president of an political advocacy organization. That alone gives her notability. Her case has been given substantial coverage in national media, and, as was pointed out, she has become a symbol for the struggle of undocumented people for their human rights. For this, she has been both lionized and demonized. She may yet cause a change in laws or policies. As evrik said, give this story a chance to develop.--Rockero 18:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Rosa Parks did not have an encyclopedia article in 1955. Give this story a chance to develop and THEN write an article about her. Where is the article on her son? He is the one doing all the work and getting all the press. Elian Gonzalez has an article, his mother and father do not. L0b0t 21:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment could you cite what policy you are referring to? Elvira Arellano passes the google test for notability. She has also been compared to Rosa Parks. (Byassee, Jason. "Sanctuary (...the new Rosa Parks)", The Christian Century, Oct 31, 2006, p. Vol.123, Iss. 22; pg. 10.) --evrik ^(talk) 21:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:NOT specifies the expectation that current event articles should be "encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance". This also points to the Current Events page which has this in its about section: "Wikipedia is not a news service. That's the job of Wikinews. We shouldn't be in the business of writing articles about breaking news stories, unless indeed we can be very confident, as in the case of the September 11 attacks, that in the future there will be a significant call for an encyclopedia article on that topic.". Bwithh 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable advocate for changes in immigration laws. I found 30 independent articles about her in major national publications, and added 10 of the to the article's talk page. This degree of coverage means that she is in fact "different from the millions of other illegal aliens" contrary to what the nomination stated. Edison 19:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment thanks for those articles. I'm going to try and use them to expand the article. --evrik ^(talk) 20:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Current affairs don't belong on Wikipedia. Recreate the article later on if she actually turns out to be important in retrospect. For example, if her advocacy actually causes changes in immigration laws, she will deserve an article here; if she achieves nothing and is forgotten in six months, she will not. — Haeleth Talk 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you cite where that is official policy? --evrik ^(talk) 20:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If current events don't belong on Wikipedia, why is there a template box that says "This article documents a current event." The Iraq War is a current event as well, and it is on Wikipedia.Crazydog 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:NOT specifies the expectation that current event articles should be "encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance". This also points to the Current Events page which has this in its about section: "Wikipedia is not a news service. That's the job of Wikinews. We shouldn't be in the business of writing articles about breaking news stories, unless indeed we can be very confident, as in the case of the September 11 attacks, that in the future there will be a significant call for an encyclopedia article on that topic.". Bwithh 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable person; AfD is also not the place to play politics. -- AuburnPilot^talk 21:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Clearly meets WP:BIO for "achieving renown or notoriety for (her) involvement in newsworthy events". The "Google Test" yields 180,000 hits [1] This case has parallels in that of Elián González. The article could be more balanced, but deletion is not the way to get it there. -- Shunpiker 22:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as newsworthy but not encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news service or a political soapbox. Please use wikinews for writing current events articles not wikipedia. Quote from Wikipedia Help on Current Events: "Wikipedia is not a news service. That's the job of Wikinews. We shouldn't be in the business of writing articles about breaking news stories, unless indeed we can be very confident, as in the case of the September 11 attacks, that in the future there will be a significant call for an encyclopedia article on that topic.". Also, has been said above, being discussed by or testifying before a legislature is not automatically an sign of encyclopedic notability (nor is media coverage). I don't see any substantive claim of encyclopedic notability - she's one representative of a notable issue. The organization she is president of doesn't seem to be encyclopedically notable either. Bwithh 07:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• This is not a news story, but a biography. --evrik ^(talk) 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Take away the news story and you don't have much of an article Bwithh 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This story is three months old. Not even wikinews is slow enough to consider that "breaking news". -- Shunpiker 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That statement is most certainly an incorrect exaggeration. hateless 04:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the current version of the Elvira Arellano article is much different from the one I voted on this morning. I based my vote on the (23:03, November 15, 2006 68.166.88.10) version. That version only had 5 paragraphs and contained 11 links to the same three sources, one of which was an editorial damning Ms. Arellano. That version did not assert importance nor significance and had been marked for speedy deletion earlier. Since my vote, the article has been significantly improved and I believe that the current version establishes that this is a watershed case regarding the civil rights of children and of immigrants. Elvira's son is 7 years old, is a U.S. Citizen, and his mother and primary caretaker is being deported. If that's not significant then what is it? If I could change my vote at this juncture, I would say Keep it! - - Chicaneo 06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh. Other than the fact that she decided to try the unusual (but not at all unheard of) tactic of taking refuge in a church, this isn't even a newsworthy story. And it's not encyclopedia-worthy either way. --Aaron 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)