Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josiah Rojas

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Josiah Rojas

Josiah Rojas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

-Autobiographical. No shred of verifiable notability. --Infrangible 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
-Keep: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." In addition to the article found at [www.csp.navy.mil/news/rel06024.html], a separate article (which is not availible online, therefore no link is availible) was published in the national newspaper: The Navy Times. Also, a local Hawaiian news channel included a story on the nightly news about Josiah Rojas, his brother, and the intergral part they played in a policy change of the United States Navy that, up until just recently, prohibeted immediate family members from serving together on the same sea going vessal...a policy that was established due to the tragic loss of the Sullivan brothers during the attack on Pearl Harbor. This is not an autobiography, this is an article that was written about someone that truly deserves recognition. I challenge anyone to review the requirements for publication and "What Wikipedia is not" , and prove that an article on Josiah Rojas has no grounds. I am sure that any arguments will be addressed and able to be corrected with little effort. --Bobsxe 05:03, 23 January 2007

But as Rojas works for the Navy, a Navy publication is not a source "independent of the subject itself." It could be considered an in-house source. Please look at coverage of other servicemen and women on Wiki: they are considered noteworthy because they have done significant things that have received national coverage in known and independent news outlets (CNN, the New York Times, etc.). Even if Rojas is known on his ship and is popular in his place of employment, it does not qualify him for an article on Wiki. It's not a mark on him or his character; it's just saying he's not considered notable under WP:BIO or the other guidelines set forth here. DanielEng 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Agree not even a pretense of notability. No sources either. --Shirahadasha 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Probably would qualify for a speedy deletion. --Park70 04:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete even though it is quite a good read. No notability of course. --BozMo talk 11:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as no notability has been explained. Jyothisingh 14:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources or references Alf photoman 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is NOT autobiographical. As a member aboard the USS Santa Fe, I have seen Mr. Rojas' actions and have read his entry in The History of the USS Santa Fe, an official Naval publication. Just because you have not heard of someone does not mean that thousands of people have not. I dare any of you to contact the USS Santa Fe. Which one of you tried to look up the sources for this article like the rules for deletion say you should and on top of that is not a reason for deletion, which also applies to your notion of "notability". --tna531 20:48, 19 January 2007
• Delete as unsourced bio that does not explain why tis servicemember is in any way notable from any other servicemember, and I strongly suggest A7 speedy deletion.-- danntm ^T _C 04:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Absolutely no sources. Even if sources were provided the information in the article doesn't indicate that this individual is particularly notable. Also, Danntm, it is not the responsibility of those 'voting' for deletion to provide sources, rather the burden of proof is on those who wish to keep the article. If you can provide sources that firmly establish the notability of this individual I'm sure everyone here would gladly support keeping the article. --The Way 06:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this individual is notable on his ship or at his workplace, it does not not make the case for Wiki standards of notablility. A search of Google turns up no sources, other than a single Navy newsletter article. DanielEng 09:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete no sources, no references, no notability. And what does it mean when it says he is an "expert at the Chevy Tahoe?"   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 17:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This individual is notable on his ship and for our great country. I also serve with him and if all of you don't believe that someone who has saved the lives of his crew members, a United States Warship and allowed missions vital to national security to completed, and defending your freedom to say these terrible things I might add, then all of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Cali411 20:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No results in a google news search, or a Google news archive search [1]. Best I found in regular google was this press release and an article in the Hawai'i Naval News PDF (page 8) but they don't come close to verifying the article, and aren't adequately independent to establish notability. GRBerry 05:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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.