![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
As a precautionary measure, since this article has been nominated for deletion before, please consider this information before taking any actions:
Tony has always been notable per our guidelines but we didn't have references online to prove so. Now we do.
Today, we can succinctly say he is notable per WP:GNG and WP:BLP since Tony:
[...] has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
Here are several references that establish his notability:
In the past, this article was criticized for its prose and I volunteer myself to fix such issues if anyone believes it should be improved. Feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will fix it.
I have known Tony for more than 9 years, if any of you need information from him please let me know and I will contact him directly by email, get the information needed, and post it myself on the article in order to avoid a conflict of interest by Tony editing it himself.
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 21:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone placed "self-published" and "unreliable sources" footnotes in the lead paragraph of the article. The "self-published" footnote is wrong because the source was a third party, not Antonio Santiago.
Regarding the "unreliable sources" footnotes -- I believe that articles by Wikimedia Foundation, and article profiles by Wikipedia, should not be deemed as "unreliable." What do other editors think? Nelsondenis248 ( talk) 05:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This (invalid) closure needs to be revised. I checked the disputed sentence and its sources and find that not one of them is a WP:RS for this kind of statement. Several are blogs and other similar internet sources, and the Senate resolutions aren't pertinent either. We are dealing with a claim that somebody is the "foremost historian" in a given field. For this kind of statement, there is only one kind of legitimate authority that could potentially back it up: publications by historians. Real historians, publishing actual academic history writing in peer-reviewed print sources. That's what "historian" means, and if you are not engaging in that discourse or if your works are not noted and discussed in this discourse, then you are not an historian, let alone a "foremost" authority in history. The Wikimedia Foundation may be independent from T.S., but that's not what "self-published" is about – it's still a self-published blog in the sense that it's not subject to editorial quality control independent of its author. The Senate of Puerto Rico may be a very honorable institution, but politicians are not historians, so their opinions on who is or isn't a leading historian are irrelevant.
I am going to remove that statement, as a matter of WP:BLP enforcement, so don't revert it back in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
[A historian is] a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it.
Is this information backed up by some reference? -- damiens.rf 19:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Alright, this is what I was able to dig up that has not been deleted yet:
I can't find resources online that assert this sentence verbatim but we all know this to be true since at that time (Wikipedia was only 6 years old back then) nobody else had been formally recognized yet (others would follow after Tony). If this is not enough for you then feel free to remove the assertion but I can guarantee you that you would be removing something that is a fact that we just can't corroborate online. Perhaps we can contact the Wikipedia Foundation public relations team so that they provide us with some fact checking?
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 03:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
As a precautionary measure, since this article has been nominated for deletion before, please consider this information before taking any actions:
Tony has always been notable per our guidelines but we didn't have references online to prove so. Now we do.
Today, we can succinctly say he is notable per WP:GNG and WP:BLP since Tony:
[...] has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
Here are several references that establish his notability:
In the past, this article was criticized for its prose and I volunteer myself to fix such issues if anyone believes it should be improved. Feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will fix it.
I have known Tony for more than 9 years, if any of you need information from him please let me know and I will contact him directly by email, get the information needed, and post it myself on the article in order to avoid a conflict of interest by Tony editing it himself.
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 21:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone placed "self-published" and "unreliable sources" footnotes in the lead paragraph of the article. The "self-published" footnote is wrong because the source was a third party, not Antonio Santiago.
Regarding the "unreliable sources" footnotes -- I believe that articles by Wikimedia Foundation, and article profiles by Wikipedia, should not be deemed as "unreliable." What do other editors think? Nelsondenis248 ( talk) 05:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This (invalid) closure needs to be revised. I checked the disputed sentence and its sources and find that not one of them is a WP:RS for this kind of statement. Several are blogs and other similar internet sources, and the Senate resolutions aren't pertinent either. We are dealing with a claim that somebody is the "foremost historian" in a given field. For this kind of statement, there is only one kind of legitimate authority that could potentially back it up: publications by historians. Real historians, publishing actual academic history writing in peer-reviewed print sources. That's what "historian" means, and if you are not engaging in that discourse or if your works are not noted and discussed in this discourse, then you are not an historian, let alone a "foremost" authority in history. The Wikimedia Foundation may be independent from T.S., but that's not what "self-published" is about – it's still a self-published blog in the sense that it's not subject to editorial quality control independent of its author. The Senate of Puerto Rico may be a very honorable institution, but politicians are not historians, so their opinions on who is or isn't a leading historian are irrelevant.
I am going to remove that statement, as a matter of WP:BLP enforcement, so don't revert it back in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
[A historian is] a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it.
Is this information backed up by some reference? -- damiens.rf 19:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Alright, this is what I was able to dig up that has not been deleted yet:
I can't find resources online that assert this sentence verbatim but we all know this to be true since at that time (Wikipedia was only 6 years old back then) nobody else had been formally recognized yet (others would follow after Tony). If this is not enough for you then feel free to remove the assertion but I can guarantee you that you would be removing something that is a fact that we just can't corroborate online. Perhaps we can contact the Wikipedia Foundation public relations team so that they provide us with some fact checking?
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 03:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)