Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulina Nin de Cardona

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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Nin de Cardona

Paulina Nin de Cardona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

To closer: see my comment below this nomination Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as a candidate never elected to office. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NJOURNALIST, and WP:GNG.

NJOURNALIST:

1. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." -- no evidence of this in RS
2. "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." -- no evidence
3. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." -- not the case
4. "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." -- not the case

ANYBIO:

1. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." -- no evidence of this
2. "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." (note: "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians.") -- this is not the case here
3. "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." -- not evident

GNG:

1. " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

1. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. -- no evidence of this in reliable sources that is above routine coverage
2. ""Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." -- reliable sources not exactly available nor plentiful and don't cover her as an individual

TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC); rationale expanded 04:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There does appear to be coverage of her as a television presenter on es-wiki, and a very cursory before search shows she passes WP:GNG in Chilean articles. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Having an article in another edition of wikipedia (I did check the ES one) is not a reason to keep one here. Each project has their own notability standards and another wiki cannot be a source for enwiki, nor can tabloids be taken seriously. A WP:BEFORE search turns up coverage that she lost the election, but not much else of note. In order to establish notability multiple independent reliable sources that cover the subject in a non-trivial manner not only have to exist, but also must be found. There is a serious lack of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. What I did find was a lot of tabloid content and interviews; interviews do nothing for notability. (This may be a Google translate error but) sources cannot even agree if she is male or female (I have found both). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  My argument is not that she is notable here because she is notable on es-wiki, but that the references on the Spanish language wiki were not about her political bid and led me to a WP:BEFORE search which found other WP:GNG coverage that's not related to her failed candidacy. She's clearly been significantly covered in Chile and is eligible for an article. She is also (sigh) clearly female, which is obvious to anyone who doesn't treat Google Translate as canon (or as in my instance just reads the articles straight up in the Spanish.) Not all of these necessarily pass WP:GNG but these were the first few of many hits: [1] [2] [3] [4] SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You are right, I have struck the above bit about he/she confusion in sources as they are clearly translation errors. I did not mean to come across misogynist or transphobic etc.

  1. fmdos appears to be trivial routine coverage
  2. t13.cl again appears to be trivial (not even about her forsay but a story she covered) routine coverage
  3. theclinic -- majority of this is an interview; interviews do not contribute towards notability
  4. elciudadano is a rehash of an interview conducted with her on a Chilean TV program. Interviews don't help towards notability but can be used as a primary source to help verify article content.

  If I am shown 2 reliable sources that clearly pass WP:GNG (e.g. non-trivial coverage of her, different reliable publications that are independent of her, not interviews/tabloids etc), I will happily withdraw (assuming SK1 is still met as a viable option). I just haven't found any. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I really don't care enough about this article to make you happy considering I think WP:GNG is super clear from just a simple search, and I probably won't post here again, but just as an example, here's an article from 2016 about her receiving an award for work done in 1992: [5]. In an interview about her failed campaign, she said "the people know me." in a headline. She's clearly been known in Chile for decades. SportingFlyer T·C 18:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability not attained on basis of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep She is mostly known for being the host of news programmes during the Chilean dictatorship, definitely not because of running for mayor of Pichilemu. --Kuatrero (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability requires verifible evidence in reliable sources that are non-trivial in nature per WP:GNG. So far, nothing has been found or demonstrated proving this. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What's particularly odd about this AfD: first, at AfDs, I have to search pretty specifically to find coverage if I want to keep the article. The issue with this article is that there is so much coverage of her in a simple search that figuring out what might qualify as an RS is difficult because you'll click on what looks like a feature article and it's an interview. She easily passes WP:NJOURNALISM #1 and #3. The second is that the nominator's fighting pretty hard to delete this one for some reason - the "show me RS and I'll keep" as if they're the gatekeeper for the AfD, responding to both keep !voters so far even though this one is one of the more fairly obvious keeps I've seen. I've done a before search, there's pages upon pages of articles which feature her as the subject, I don't care about updating the article, but I'm clearly satisfied WP:GNG is met for the purposes of her notability, even if that's not currently reflected in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 09:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Upon further extensive searching for sources in case I was missing something, I uncovered this list of archived Chilean newspaper articles in Spanish which was missed in my initial BEFORE searches prior to this nomination. Based on this and with a touch of WP:AGF (re "multiple, independent" sources with different authors), it appears that the subject is indeed covered sufficiently in offline sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Were this still eligible for SK1, I would indeed close it as speedy keep; I am not sure if I can !vote "keep" at an AfD that I nominated outside of SK1, but if I could I would (if I can, please consider this as such). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this AfD has turned up enough evidence of WP:GNG; article is in desperate need of improvement and attention but shouldn't be deleted Spiderone 21:07, 23 October 2020 (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.