Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Amelia López Soliño

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 both articles. - KrakatoaKatie 00:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

María Amelia López Soliño

This page is just for the "oldest blogger" (at that time), which is not that notable. Subsequently we will get more of these as the old ones die off, and new ones appear. To say it's special that an old person can use a computer, is rather ageist. I could easily make a page for my father who was programming a ZX spectrum in 1990 at the age of 87. It's just not notable. I originally PRODed the article, but the page creator asked if I would be willing to change to AfD instead Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the subject is very similar:

Can you let the creator of the Olive Riley article know that you've included the article in this nomination? --Canley (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both No nontrivial coverage in third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the article's creator I was aware that this subject's notability is debatable. I am not attached to the article, but I created it because someone found the subject's death sufficiently notable to include in the Deaths in 2009 obituary section (see Deaths in 2009). As I say I am not attached to the article and I will not contest non-notability. However, I would like to know whether or not, at least in general, inclusion in Wikipedia's obit section makes a subject notable per se. Thanks. [email protected] (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the other way around. Entries in Recent deaths ultimately survive only if a WP article is created and it passes any notability challenges. WWGB (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, and in fact, she should be removed from Deaths in 2009 if she's not notable, which seems to be the case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added her to the obit section because her death was mentioned in USA Today's "Pop Candy" column. That mention was brief, but it did include a link to an obituary -- and I used that as a reference, and Mr. Hammer should have looked at it before he said there was no coverage in third party sources.SPNic (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obit seems to be the only coverage she got. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Olive Riley, abstain on María Amelia López Soliño. Riley was covered in multiple non-trivial sources both prior to her death and following it, thereby meeting the primary notability criterion. If the nominator's father received similar coverage for programming a ZX Spectrum, then I would welcome an article on him. --Canley (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Canley, do you mind if I ask what you mean by "the nominator's father...". I really do not get what you mean, but it doesn't sound like it is in accord with WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF.

(s)he means my father (see my text at top). Dad would have loved a page on himself, but I could not cite any refs. I was just trying to show that the use of a PC can apply to someone of any age, and we should not be ageist by making pages for the older PC users. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no disrespect or offence meant at all, Ron, hope you didn't take it that way but it looks like you didn't. --Canley (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on María Amelia López Soliño. WP:NOTNEWS applies here, and the article about her is really just news coverage of her recent death; there's no evidence of lasting notability there. Weak Keep on Olive Riley, who seems slightly more notable (e.g. she had a documentary made about her). I also note that while both of these people were described as 'the world's oldest blogger', only one of them can be, and that title would seem to conclusively belong to Riley. Robofish (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on both. There's not a lot of argument either way, and when in doubt it's best to keep. Bienfuxia (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on Olive Riley, due to independent coverage, pushing her over the WP:GNG line, in my view. No opinion on María Amelia López Soliño. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Olive Riley due to the independent coverage she received in reliable sources before and after her death. Neutral on María Amelia López Soliño, since it is rather difficult to tell conclusively whether there is substantial coverage of her in reliable sources due to the fact that she shares her name with a historical figure (see es:María Soliño). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep María Amelia López Soliño was a national phenomenon in Spain, she was visited by the president of the government (Zapatero), plenty of coverage even in the English language press before her death. She won a prize ofr best Spanish language blog from Deutcshe Welle in 2007. All in the article now. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request that perhaps voters here re-review the article in light of substantial additions made to the article. There appears to be no concensus. I am not attached to this article (although it appears others have become so, ironically) and as I stated before I will not contest non-notability. Thus I am not voting but I just wanted to express my opinion. [email protected] (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2009 (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.