Talk:Armando Gutierrez
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Indictment Controversy
[edit]Really? So this individual is considered notable because he got mixed up with another person of the same name in a newspaper article? I don't think this section is worthy of inclusion into this article. SnottyWong talk 15:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I question your addition of the puffery tag to that section. What wording is an exaggeration or puffery? Most of the section about the subject is an attributed direct quote. Please justify which part you feel is an exaggeration, or remove the tag. As for inclusion, since the story involves news coverage in Taxas, Florida, and New Mexico, it is clearly a notable event. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 15:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is no story. Your story is that a newspaper screwed up, wrote a story about a different Armando Gutierrez, and then mistakenly attributed it to this Armando Gutierrez. That, on its own, is not notable or encyclopedic. Was there a subsequent lawsuit or scandal that resulted from this newspaper article that would make it even minimally notable? It also speaks volumes that the best source for Gutierrez's accomplishments you can find is a newspaper retraction. I didn't add the puffery tag for exaggerated wording, I added it because you're trying to prove the Gutierrez's notability by describing a non-notable event that didn't even involve him (or at the very most, only coincidentally involved him). If this person is as notable as you contend they are, it should be easy to find real sources about Gutierrez (not mistaken identity retractions) that tell us which political candidates he was consulting for, what offices they were running for, and why he played such an important role. SnottyWong talk 18:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem then. The fact that another paper reprinted the retraction strikes me as something rare enough to be considered notable itself, but we can certainly disagree on that. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Any newspaper that ran the first story with the mistaken identity would have it in their best interests to print a retraction. That's not a rare event nor is it unexpected or unusual in any way. SnottyWong talk 19:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem then. The fact that another paper reprinted the retraction strikes me as something rare enough to be considered notable itself, but we can certainly disagree on that. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is no story. Your story is that a newspaper screwed up, wrote a story about a different Armando Gutierrez, and then mistakenly attributed it to this Armando Gutierrez. That, on its own, is not notable or encyclopedic. Was there a subsequent lawsuit or scandal that resulted from this newspaper article that would make it even minimally notable? It also speaks volumes that the best source for Gutierrez's accomplishments you can find is a newspaper retraction. I didn't add the puffery tag for exaggerated wording, I added it because you're trying to prove the Gutierrez's notability by describing a non-notable event that didn't even involve him (or at the very most, only coincidentally involved him). If this person is as notable as you contend they are, it should be easy to find real sources about Gutierrez (not mistaken identity retractions) that tell us which political candidates he was consulting for, what offices they were running for, and why he played such an important role. SnottyWong talk 18:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Criticism
[edit]If anyone has criticism of this person to post please make sure it complies with WP:BLP. Thanks. Blue Rasberry 23:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Armando Gutierrez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421230056/http://enespanol.discovery.com:80/sitiofan/elian-gonzalez/elian-gonzalez.html to http://enespanol.discovery.com/sitiofan/elian-gonzalez/elian-gonzalez.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)