Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joaquin Maria Gutierrez

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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). Still in need of a rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously deleted in this AfD. Some questions on the help desk lead to this deletion being reviewed. Some new information was found that may justify keeping the (restored) article e.g. [1] [2] [3]. -Splash^talk 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The prizes look borderline notable, but ultimately a talented high-schooler looks non-notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and rewrite. The article is too poorly written, giving the impression that he's just one more un-notable kid in the world. It's not even up-to-date. Don Diego[[User talk:Don Diego|^(Talk)]] 07:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Needs a rewrite and sources, though. Lupo 12:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The maths prizes are not a reason for inclusion, winning national grade/high school music competitions aren't either in my opinion. Solo performances in front of large international audiences might be, but I don't see nearly enough evidence for exceptional talent and fame as a prodigy on google. -- Marcika 13:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Vanity. Proto t c 14:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is the kind of problem I am talking about. The article is so poorly written that the importance of his achievements don't come through. He did not win a school competition, it was a nationwide competition, in all instances. What constitutes a prodigy, may I ask? Is it Google sources? If you want some more evidence, may I direct you to [4], which is a government archive. It clearly states in one section that President Arroyo awarded Gutierrez an Achiever Award. Personally, I think that for a single person to attract the attention of a president, in whatever nation, he has to be quite talented or skilled or notable or whatever word you'd like to use. I do not think this is a vanity article or anything similar. This kid is fast on the rise, and sooner or later, somebody's going to write him in here, whether you like it or not, so what's the use in deleting it? Don Diego[[User talk:Don Diego|^(Talk)]] 15:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then perhaps you could be bold and rewrite the article, as you are clearly well informed on this young man, and so would be well-placed to reshape this abhorrence into something that can convince people the article should exist. His being 'fast on the rise' is not going to convince anyone that an article should exist on him now. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball. Proto t c 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Not well written, but competing in the International Math Olympiad as a 12-year-old is probably notable. Weak keep. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite the heck out of it While I don't like overacheivers as much as the next guy, they're here to stay. International awards, national prestige (you know, for a violinist) and all of that are notable. The article is rambling and needs to be fixed up. DeathThoreau 18:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks notable enough to be kept, so long as it is rewritten, and fast. I say give the boy a chance. Perhaps we give Don Diego around a week to write? And if it's still in shambles, then delete. {{User:JMBell/sig}} 08:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try my best, but I'm not the best of writers, and I only have limited information. Give me more time! Don Diego^(Talk) 14:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When his career gets going, he can come back and write another vanity page. Eusebeus 15:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Any editors from the Philippines chiming in on this? I hesitate to say that the Filipino violinist is nn because of relative lack of exposure to someone who could be quite notable in his country. Take five and see if his countrymen, if possible, can tell us about this person's notariety (or lack thereof). For every one page of promotion the Philippines disseminates in the international media, the United States puts out at least 20,000. If the article is kept, a rewrite is in order, but at least it's salvageable. B.Wind 18:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as incredible vanity/fiction. Jake013 18:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (Racist ranting removed. Lupo 11:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oh yeah, the original VfD nominator Jake013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No edits since October 18, and then comes back just for this racist rant? Gimme a break! Lupo 11:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see what's so racist in saying that I don't believe that a 15-year old can do math and music and come from the Philippines at the same time. It's a fact of life that even competent adults, much less teens, cannot balance their time so that they can study two entirely different fields and still be good at it. And I do not know anybody talented from the Philippines, which I think is currently embroiled in a corruption scandal, correct? I simply cannot begin to comprehend how a "prodigy" can come from such an un-nurturing country. And even with proof of his "achievements", I'd still be very skeptical. Jake013 13:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Probably notable, as per B. Wind. Wellmann 07:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lulu. Stifle 10:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another Ivan Cherevko?  Grue  20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think not, otherwise he wouldn't have all these decent sources. That's what I think. Don Diego^(Talk) 14:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Deaththoreau. Sp@rkplug 13:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite. I happen to know Master Gutierrez personally, and I think he does deserve an entry, after all he's done (though it is in dire need of rewriting). I don't think it would be fair to cite a lack of sources as proof of non-notability. After all, some of the articles written in the Philippines aren't online, and some are real old or have been erased from archives (which happened to some reviews I've been looking for), so it wouldn't be fair saying that a lack of Google sources justifies his non-notability. While it is true taht he still has much to achieve, it is also true that so far, he has already achieved much. Chosen One 16:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • New reference. (Philippine Star) Chosen One 17:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny. Usually people write vanity articles themselves, or at least about themselves. As far as I am aware, Mr. Gutierrez has done neither. And I have yet to see his defending comments on this page, if, as you claim, he is the original author of this abomination. Chosen One 10:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and rewrite per DeathThoreau and Chosen One. H.J.Potter 20:10, 18 December 2005 (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.