Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio J. De Rosenzweig

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 speedy delete. author requested deletion DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio J. De Rosenzweig

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

No hits for Antonio J. de Rosenzweig or Antonio De Rosenzweig on either Google Books or Google Scholar. An ordinary Google search also turns up little of use. Otherwise nothing to indicate he passes WP:PROF. Article is also somewhat promotional. AfD started at 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63's request and endorsed by myself. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note – The article was nominated again for speedy deletion while I was preparing this AfD, but since the speedy has been contested several times now I'm going to leave this stand. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I'd already nominated this once for speedy deletion, and prodded it after that. Rather than a bio, this is really a description of the subject's project. Neither Mr. Rosenzweig nor his eponymous disaster scale [1] have received significant coverage, so this wouldn't even work as a redirect. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources. Very promotional. No indication of notability from secondary sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objection to speedy. Both the scale and the BLP subject fail GNG and/or PROF. All I can find is material published by the subject's organization. I do not see any use of this scale by disaster relief organizations nor have I heard of either from the EMCOM work which I do. Maybe this will be a useful/significant thing/subject in the future. All in all this looks like a PR piece for the purpose of advancing the comercial interest of the subject. Jbh ^Talk 01:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the person nor the metric appear to be notable. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I read are notes related to "references" and not with the contents of the scale. I believe the wikipedia vocation is not to publish all ready published documents but to offer sustainable contents at least until another expert can refuted a point of view with another better, wider, and sense making point of view. If so, I encourage the wikipedian community related to experts in the disaster field, to establish a serious discussion around the topic until a consensus can be reached. I offer a direct discussion with the author which can derivate on a deeper study at the same time the scale is presented to the international community in Geneva May 12 and 13.

If wikipedia only publish supported related and linked content, then please feel free to delete asap the article, because it might pass a few time, before it can be related and supported according with wikipedia standards. If so please only have into consideration that wikipedia working sheets must be simplified guidance and the its main vocation should be redefined as repeaters of other trustable sources, which in that case, will be much more reliable than wikipedia itself.

In my opinion the Wikipedia project can be great window for human knowledge that propose new theories and than not always find the proper ways to be published them, due to a rigid tradicional academic estructure, that as we can see in many times has become a big obstacle for the knowledge, in other times it has been deeply mistaken and in other times, is just matter of time. On the other hand, designing a method that challenge experts all over the world, regardless their flag and native institutions, will speed up the evolution of human knowledge, and will transform wikipedia, in the most important sanctuary for learning, not from articles supported in google search, nor links, but in open discussions, as I said.

Just to finish the definition of "disaster" published in wikipedia, is as wrong as in the rest of the dictionaries, supported by the rest of the academic institutions, and therefore, wikipedia is not suitable source for promoting any significative change in the way authorities understand disaster. "The sudden alteration in collective interaction patterns of variables related in a system" is the proper disaster definition because it meet the universal criteria... it can be apply for any place, any where and for any kind or phenomena.

I will mail this conversation to wikipedia founders so they can observe the distortions on the original project as I will ask everyone in this discussion to review the wikipedia history. On my personal opinion, the answer founded since the publication of the article, us just made by non experts in disasters, as a result of facing a discovery.

Hoping to find a high level discussions farther than google searchs, and related links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariana Montero (talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariana Montero: While I wish you the best of luck in talking to the founders of Wikipedia, presently Wikipedia does require "linked content" and references. It is not a forum to advertise or discuss new theories. Have a look at our policies regarding notability, reliable sources, and what Wikipedia is not. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article's creator has blanked it and requested speedy deletion [2]. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2016 (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.