Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardita Zúñiga

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. Kurykh (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardita Zúñiga

Bernardita Zúñiga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources contain to minor of references to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Miss World national contestant. The article needs work, though. Montanabw^(talk) 11:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant if someone is a Miss World contestant. All BLPs need to meet WP:GNG, and this one does not. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss World Chile § Titleholders, where the subject is mentioned, per WP:ATD-R. Valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a person who represented her nation at the highest level of competition in her field. It is reasonable to presume that there are reliable sources beyond those that already appear in the article, even if those additional sources have not yet been found. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not reasonable. And we don't have to presume; I checked, and there aren't any. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Survey (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NewYorkActuary --- PageantUpdater (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep: Unfortunately, Wikipedia notability policy seems to imply that we will have articles about every national beauty pageant winner, guaranteeing about 300 new BLPs per year, most of which will be about people who won't ever be notable for much else. --Slashme (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed !vote to Delete - I see now that there is no presumption of notability for beauty pageant winners, and that the proposed SNG was not accepted. Thanks The Quixotic Potato for pointing this out! --Slashme (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slashme: Why do you say that? Please post a link. I believe WP:GNG means that basically none of these people are notable unless they've done something else. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Survey (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong venue  As per WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT and evidence of a suitable redirect target; notability of this topic is a matter to be determined as a content decision.  Arguing to delete for notability is a red herring for objecting to editors creating articles as standalone instead of as part of a list of mini-bios.  But the remedy is to either WP:SOFIXIT, or as part of WP:PRESERVE, build consensus on the talk page of the article for a merge.  As per WP:Deletion process, oldid=766582163, AfD is not a vote count. 

===Consensus=== Main pages: Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes. Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and community consensus on a wider scale. (While consensus can change, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.)

Unscintillating (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no position on this article, but keeping or deleting at an individual article on the basis of how a specific guideline is to be interpreted is within the role of AfD. And even if its more than just an interpretation, consensus for making an exception or using IAR is also a valid conclusion at an AfD. We make the rules, which we make by general discussions, and we make the exceptions, which we do in individual decisions. . DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for nominator. A few days ago, the nominator stated that they had checked for sources and declared "there aren't any". Perhaps the nominator will be kind enough to tell us what checks were done, and also the extent to which those checks included non-English and non-Internet sources. In the meantime, I'll simply note that the Wikipedia community has long accepted the presumed existence of sources for persons who have engaged in competition at the highest level of their fields. Thus, we do not demand multiple references for any person who has played baseball at the major-league level, nor for any cricketer who has played at the Test level, nor for any athlete who has competed in the Olympics. In all of these examples (as well as the many others that could also be mentioned), it is sufficient to demonstrate that the person has indeed engaged in structured competition at that highest level. And, that long-accepted standard has been met here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show that this person passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2017 (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.